1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Airport Deicing Category - Final Rule Responses to Public Comments April 2012 Table of Contents A. Comments and Responses (arranged by topic) 25_GAL_OPIMPACT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing

– operational impacts ................................ ........................ 5 25_GAL_EXEMPT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing

– exemption ................................ ................................ ........... 8 ADF_ADDITIVE - ADF Additives ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 12 ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF ................................ ................................ ........................... 15 ADF_DATA - Airport specific ADF usage data ................................ ................................ ........................ 24 ADF_NORM - Normalized ADF ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 3 1 ADF_PURCHASE - ADF Purchase vs. Usage ................................ ................................ .......................... 34 ADF_RPTING - ADF Usage Reporting ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 36 ADF_USAGE - ADF Usage estimates - general ................................ ................................ ........................ 39 ADF_USAGE_HIGH - EPA’s ADF usage estimates are high ................................ ................................ ... 47 AIRFIELD_LOAD - Airfield deicing loads ................................ ................................ ............................... 51 AIRLINE_PERMIT - Require airlines as permittees ................................ ................................ ................. 55 ALASKA - Alaskan airport ADF collection ................................ ................................ ............................... 57 ALT_ADF - Alternative ADF products ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 60 AMM_TRT_STD - Treatment standard for Ammonia as N ................................ ................................ ...... 65 BAT_20 - 20% BAT is not supported ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 66 BAT_60 - 60% BAT is not supported ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 74 BAT_AMM - BAT limitation for ammonia is not supported ................................ ................................ ..... 83 BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 87 BAT_ COD - BAT limitations for COD ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 97 BAT_IR - Infrared as BAT ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 103 BAT_PER - BAT performance ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 105 BAT_RECYCLE - Recycle/recovery technologies as BAT ................................ ................................ ..... 113 BAT_START_UP - BAT performance

– start up ................................ ................................ ..................... 121 BAT_VAR - BAT limitations

– variability ................................ ................................ .............................. 122 C_ADD_AIR_EM - Additional costs associated with air emissions ................................ ........................ 132 C_ADD_LAND - Additional costs associated with land ................................ ................................ ......... 1352 C_ADD_OP - Additional costs associated w ith operational impacts ................................ ....................... 137 C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs

– Other ................................ ................................ ................................ . 145 C_AFB_BASIS - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - Basis of costs ................................ ...................... 159 C_AFB_CAP - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - capital costs ................................ ............................ 168 C_AFB_O&M - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - O&M costs ................................ ........................... 174 C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized deicing pad - Basis of costs ................................ ................................ ...... 178 C_CDP_CAP - Centralized deicing pad - capital costs ................................ ................................ ............ 195 C_CDP_O&M - Centralized deicing pad - O&M costs ................................ ................................ ............ 202 C_COD_LOAD - Costing metrics based on COD normalized load ................................ ......................... 205 C_DEPART - Costing metrics based on annual departures ................................ ................................ ...... 206 C_DESIGN - Costing data do not reflect specific design elements ................................ .......................... 206 C_GRV - Glycol recovery vehicle costs ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 207 C_INC - Costing data is inconsistent and incomplete ................................ ................................ .............. 213 C_OTH_TECH_DATA - Other technology cost data ................................ ................................ .............. 218 C_PIPING - Piping costs ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 224 C_SCALING - Cost scaling ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 227 C_STORAGE - Storage requirements and costs ................................ ................................ ...................... 229 C_TANK - Tank costs ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 238 CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts ................................ ......................... 240 COD_TRT_STD - Treatment standard for COD ................................ ................................ ...................... 271 COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance ................................ ................................ ....................... 275 COMP_TIME_EXT - Compliance timeframe extension ................................ ................................ ......... 286 DEPART_CUTOFF - Set different departure cut - offs ................................ ................................ ............. 299 E_ACHIEV - Economic achievability ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 304 E_AIRLINES - Economic analysis for airlines general comments ................................ .......................... 312 E_AIRPORT - Economic analysis fo r airports general comments ................................ ........................... 317 E_DSCR - Economic analysis

– Debt - Service Coverage Ratio ................................ ............................... 320 E_FINANCE - Financing used for analysis ................................ ................................ .............................. 322 E_IMPACT_ANA - Economic impact analysis data ................................ ................................ ................ 332 E_MKT_ANA - Economic analysis

– airline market analysis ................................ ................................ . 340 E_REV_TEST - Economic analysis

– revenue test ................................ ................................ .................. 342 E_SALES_TEST - Economic analysis

– sales test ................................ ................................ ................... 350 EA_GEN - EA analysis

– general comments ................................ ................................ ........................... 352 EA_INTAKES - EA benefits to downstream water intakes ................................ ................................ ..... 362 EA_MONITIZE - EA benefits should be monetized ................................ ................................ ................ 364 EA_NEWS - Use of n ewspaper articles to support impacts ................................ ................................ ..... 3653 EA_O2_RICH - EA benefits cannot be claimed for oxygen rich receiving waters ................................ .. 366 EA_REC_WATER - Receiving water data ................................ ................................ .............................. 370 EST_EFF - Estimated collection efficiencies ................................ ................................ ........................... 374 FAA_CONFLICT - ELG conflicts with FAA safety and operational requirements ................................ 377 FAA_INPUT - Need FAA Input ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 391 FDF_ VAR - FDF Variances ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 396 GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts ................................ ........................ 402 L_BPT/BCT - EPA must set BPT/BCT ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 414 L_CONTRARY - Rule is contrary to law ................................ ................................ ................................ 419 L_NOTICE - EPA has failed to provide proper notice ................................ ................................ ............. 421 L_REMOVE_RULE - EPA should not regulate w/ ELG or should repropose ................................ ........ 422 LOAD_COMPARE - Comparison of costs to load removals ................................ ................................ .. 428 MILTARY - Regulation should cover military airport deicing ................................ ................................ 433 MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off ................................ ................................ ....................... 435 MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered ................................ ................................ ........ 446 NSPS_DEMO - NSPS demonstration of compliance ................................ ................................ ............... 461 NSPS_NOT_SUP - NSPS is not supported ................................ ................................ .............................. 463 NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway ................................ ................................ ..................... 471 OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 483 OPPOSE_COD - Oppose COD as regulated pollutant ................................ ................................ ............. 498 OPPOSE_REG - Oppose Proposed Rule

– General comments ................................ ................................ 509 P2_ANALYSIS - EPA’s analysis of pollution prevention technologies ................................ .................. 515 P2_CREDIT - Pollution prevention credits ................................ ................................ .............................. 524 P2_FACTORS - EPA should set factors for pollution prevention credits ................................ ................ 527 P2_INCENTIVE - Rule needs greater incentives for pollution prevention ................................ .............. 529 POTW_IMP - Deicing stormwater impacts to POTWs ................................ ................................ ............ 530 PSES - EPA should develop PSES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 532 PW_AUTH - Permit writer authority to dictate collection technology ................................ .................... 533 PW_GUIDE - Permit writer guidance ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 541 REG_100 - Require 100% collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 54 5 REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes ................................ ................................ ........................... 546 SITE_CONST - New subcategory for site - constrained airports ................................ ............................... 556 SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constrained airports - operational impacts ................................ ...................... 559 SUPPORT_BAN - Support ammonia ban ................................ ................................ ................................ 57 7 SUPPORT_COD - Support COD as regulated pollutant ................................ ................................ .......... 577 SUPPORT_REG - Support Proposed Rule

– General comments ................................ ............................. 5784 TASTE/ODOR - Taste and odor treatment standards ................................ ................................ ............... 584 TECH_FORCING - ELG mandates technology ................................ ................................ ....................... 585 B. List of Commenters ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 5945 25_GAL_OPIMPACT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1 - 6 The EPA proposal to restrict the amount of ADF used to 25 gallons, without exceptions for deicing of critical airplane surfaces or for weight reasons at airports with a central facility, conflicts with existing FAA safety requirements on deicing. Response: EPA generally agrees with the commenters and we have revised the final rule accordingly. The final rule does not limit the amount of ADF sprayed for the purposes of safe taxiing nor does the final rule require an airport to collect and treat ADF applied for safe taxiing purposes. 25_GAL_OPIMPACT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 23 Second, the proposed limit would effectively eliminate any aircraft departures which cannot operate because 25 gallons of ADF is inadequate to clear engine intakes and other critical areas for safe taxiing. No airline would compromise safety, or sugges t that its pilots in command compromise flight safety by taxiing an inadequately deiced aircraft. Thus, if the pilot in command of a flight requiring pre - taxi deicing concludes that his or her EPA - allotted 25 gallons of ADF has not sufficiently cleared the aircraft’s engine inlets and other taxi - critical areas that flight simply will not operate. EPA has no authority to affect aircraft operations in this manner.73 Response: See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 6. 25_GAL_O PIMPACT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 35 EPA Fails to Consider Safety Adequately in Proposing the 25 - Gallon Limit Applicable to “Deicing for Safe Taxiing” EPA’s proposed 25 - gallon limit on the am ount of ADF that may be used in “deicing for safe taxiing”119 illustrates the need for EPA to ensure industry and the FAA have adequate time before any re - proposal to provide comprehensive comments on critical safety issues. EPA explains that this propose d limit “is based on a current requirement at Denver International Airport.” 120 It fails, however, to note that the airport’s NPDES permit includes a safety based - exception (which we note below also has an operational component) that allows full deicing o ff the CDPs in some circumstances: Under special situations, for safety reasons Airport Operations may grant permission for full deicing at the A and C concourse gates where it is not normally allowed. Full deicing at A and C concourse gates will only be a llowed when authorized by the airport manager or his designee. Full deicing at any other areas is prohibited. 121 [FOOTNOTE:121 CDS Permit No.: COS - 000008, Part I, Section D.2.A. Summary of Rationale at 16 (§ VI.C.1) (effective May 14, 2004).] The Agency a lso fails to account for safety issues when it proposes to apply that standard, developed for an arid environment, at other airports that experience drastically different winter conditions. 121 CDS Permit No.: COS - 000008, Part I, Section D.2.A. Summary of Rationale at 16 (§ VI.C.1) (effective May 14, 2004). Response: See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 6.6 25_GAL_OPIMPACT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 41 EPA Fa ils to Consider Operational Impacts Adequately in Proposing the 25Gallon Limit Applicable to “Deicing for Safe Taxiing” Any limit on the use of ADF for “safe taxiing” would effectively limit the number of aircraft operations where the allotted ADF is not s ufficient to ensure safe operation of the aircraft. Rather than risk compromising safety, airlines and their pilots would instead cancel any such operation. The Record contains no recognition or analysis of this impact. While we remain adamant that EPA is without authority to establish any form of limitation with respect to ADF usage, it also is clear that any such limitation would need either to account for the operational cost of these canceled operations or to provide for sufficient non - CDP deicing to as sure the safe and lawful operation of all scheduled departures. Response: See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 6. 25_GAL_OPIMPACT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 47 Twenty - five - gallon safe taxiing limit. The Proposed Rule would allow deicing to occur at a location other than a centralized pad “for safe taxiing.” The volume of ADF used while deicing for safe taxiing would not be allowed to exceed 25 gallons of nor malized ADF per aircraft.99 Our concerns about this provision of the Proposed Rule include: • Our understanding that the 25 - gallon figure was selected based on anecdotal information from one airline at one airport (DEN) that is not comparable to the New Yo rk airports in its climate, configuration or operating characteristics; • The potential interference with FAA’s exclusive jurisdiction over safety requirements; • The mechanical ability to comply with the limit, given the throughput capacity of the nozzles on ADF spraying equipment;100 • Potential problems related to the Port Authority’s inability to monitor and enforce the limit; and • The potential result that some aircraft might need to be towed to deicing pads because the safe taxiing limit cannot be me t, with corresponding impacts on aircraft delay and costs. Response: See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 6. 25_GAL_OPIMPACT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1234.1 - 1 ALPA does not support those sections of the proposed Part §449.20 Monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements wherein the amount of ADF that can be used to prepare and enable an aircraft to engage in safe taxiing and take off without snow or ice a dhering to the aircraft's critical surfaces is arbitrarily limited to a maximum of 25 - gallons per aircraft. Several factors must be taken into account to properly conduct deicing operations of an aircraft preparing for takeoff. These include differences in the type, rate and temperature of precipitation, all of which may increase the need for ADF; the length, width and applicable surfaces of the most demanding airplane; the amount of holdover time required for an aircraft to safely taxi and be in a position for takeoff following the aircraft's initial or subsequent deicing; and the proficiency of ground personnel to properly perform assigned deicing operations. This last factor is significant in view of the fact that poor de - icing technique by applying it to non - critical surfaces could result in consuming the fixed 25 - gallons of ADF before it is applied to the correct surfaces. We also find7 the 25 - gallon limitation inconsistent with EPA's own statement found on Page 44683: "While the FAA has issued regulati ons and guidance on conducting deicing/anti - icing operations, the aircraft pilot is ultimately responsible for determining whether the deicing performed is adequate. The pilot may inspect the aircraft after deicing and order additional deicing or anti - icin g." This last sentence allows for direct conflict with the mandated use of a fixed quantity of ADF. If the pilot - in - command does determine that additional ADF is required, in excess of the allotted 25 - gallons, will ground personnel be authorized to apply the requested additional fluid without penalty or a violation being levied against the airport or airline? The possibility of a penalty being imposed may encourage the use of the allotted 25 - gallons only, and not the amount actually required for properly d eicing the aircraft in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) standards. We believe that these circumstances could result in circumstances where ground personnel may not complete the deicing to the FAA standard, potentially jeopardizin g the safety of the flight. Response: See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 6. 25_GAL_OPIMPACT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1234.1 - 5 Eliminate the arbitrary 25 - gallo n limitation of aircraft deicing fluid (ADF) that can be used for deicing an aircraft. We believe that doing so is necessary to permit ground personnel to use the quantity of ADF required to meet FAA standards for removing snow, ice and frost from an aircr aft prior to taxi and take off. Response: See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 6. 25_GAL_OPIMPACT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 61 EPA Should Not Limit Deicin g for Safe Taxiing. EPA has proposed to limit the volume of ADF to be used for safe taxiing to 25 gallons. While EPA apparently based this provision on a similar limit in place at Denver International Airport (DEN), the Agency failed to demonstrate a subst antive basis for the limit. EPA also did not take into account the safety implications associated with establishing such a limit. Additionally, it is unclear whether the deicing associated with safe taxiing is exempt from the collection requirements. The e xistence of a similar “limit” at one airport should not be relied on for general applicability across the industry. Site - specific considerations will dictate the amount of ADF necessary to safely taxi to designated deicing locations. The DIA limit is based on an unsubstantiated estimate of the quantity of ADF one airline indicated to the airport may be necessary for application prior to taxiing to the deicing pads. DIA is located in a semi - arid climate with deicing pads located near terminal area points of egress. The apparent sufficiency of the application of 25 gallons of ADF to allow an aircraft to safely taxi to Denver’s deicing pads is not necessarily indicative of the quantity of ADF necessary to allow an aircraft to safely taxi at an airport in a more humid climate or with remote deicing facilities. In the end, however, EPA never checked analyzed the basis of this provision, how it is enforced there, or how airlines may react to such a requirement. It would appear that EPA found something obscure that was appealing from a regulatory perspective and merely plugged it into their proposal without fully understanding the ramifications or impacts on airport operations and safety. More importantly, decisions relating to the quantity of fluid usage necessary t o ensure safe operations are most appropriately left to the air carriers, and ultimately the pilots, based on their FAA plans, aircraft type, safety considerations, and8 weather conditions. Safety is a critical aviation issue which airports should not be he ld liable or responsible for in meeting effluent limitation guideline requirements. In this context, EPA is setting up a separate “no - win” decision between passenger safety and environmental compliance, recognizing that any such conscious decision potentia lly exposes the decision - maker to civil or criminal liability. Response: See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 6. 25_GAL_OPIMPACT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 7 In the Proposed Rule, EPA has established a 25 - gallon limit of ADF to be used for safe taxiing from a gate to a deice pad. At SLC the airlines determine the amount of deicing fluid required to safely taxi a plane from a terminal gate to a deicing pad. Th e airlines make these determinations based on FAA regulations, safety considerations and weather conditions. EPA's 25 - gallon limit could create a safety hazard at SLC. SLCDA cannot assume the liability associated with enforcing this standard. Response: Se e the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 6. 25_GAL_EXEMPT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – exemption Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1199 - 9 Measures to address deicing in the taxiway should be required. Fairfax Wateragrees with the inclusion of language requiring that all deicing activities take place in an area where available ADF is actively collected. However, the allowance for deicing for safe taxiing (up to 25 gallons of ADF per aircraft), proposed in §449.20, presents a troubling water quality concern if the taxiways are not actively managed for ADF collection. The proposed regulation does not present clear requirements for applicability of the taxiway deicing allowance, potentially leading to misinterpretation of ADF capture requirements for this activity. The regulation needs to ensure that Airports actively collect ADF regardless of where the ADF is applied. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, Comment Excerpt 5. Also the final rule do es not estabilsh nationally applicable requirements to control aircraft deicing discharges at existing airports. Such controls will be established by the permit writer on a site - specific BPJ basis 25_GAL_EXEMPT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – exemption Commen t Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 - 5 The EPA acknowledges that some deicing is required to address critical surfaces on an aircraft prior to taxi to deicing locations. It is not clearly stated whether or not the volume of ADF applied for the critical su rfaces is included within the calculations to determine 20% or 60% collection if the airport is relying on the mass balance approach of demonstrating compliance as provided for in §449.20(b)(3). The application of small volumes of ADF to prepare aircraft f or safe taxiing conditions will generally not be conducted in areas designated for deicing or designed for spent deicing fluid collection. Therefore, this volume should not be defined as "available ADF". The EPA should modify §449.20(b)(3) to include speci fic language indicating that any ADF volumes applied within the limits of the safe - taxi provisions be defined as9 "unavailable ADF" and therefore not included with the application/collection calculation used to determine compliance with the percent collecti on requirement, assuming the permittee is utilizing §449.20(b)(3) as the compliance measure. Response: In the final rule (which sets ADF collection and treatment requirements only for new sources and not existing sources), for the reasons explained in the preamble, EPA does not limit the amount of ADF sprayed by new sources for the purposes of safe taxiing In particular, the amount of ADF used for safe taxiing is now specifically excluded from the definition of ”Available ADF.” Nor does the final rule require new sources to collect and treat ADF used for safe taxiing in order to demonstrate compliance with NSPS requirements. Commenters raised safety concerns about limiting the amount of ADF used for safe taxiing and EPA agreed with those concerns and has lifted the 25 gallon limit on ADF used for safe taxiing. 25_GAL_EXEMPT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – exemption Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 - 6 The volume of ADF fluid allowed for safe - taxi appears to be developed by using the Denver Interna tional Airport safe - taxi limit as a template. This value does not appear to have been derived through any scientifically - supported analysis and may be inappropriate. It is reasonable to assume that the safe - taxi required volume will vary significantly base d on aircraft type, climate conditions, distance to contained deicing location, and other factors. If the need for deicing prior to taxiing an aircraft is acknowledged by the EPA, there should be more analysis regarding what the appropriate volume is to ac complish the desired goal of this deicing. The volume of ADF required to accomplish this may be higher in some instances, which would directly impact the "ADF available for capture" and therefore directly impact an airport's ability to comply with the coll ection requirements under the proposed ELG. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, Comment Excerpt 5. 25_GAL_EXEMPT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – exemption Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1219.1 - 7 NATA strongly objects to th e EPA placing any limits on the amount of ADF that may need to be applied to an aircraft for safe operations, including taxiing. By proposing a limit on the amount of ADF that may be applied for safe taxiing of an aircraft, the EPA is operating far outside of its area of expertise and authority. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, Comment Excerpt 5. The final rule does not limit the amount of ADF that may be applied to aircraft.10 25_GAL_EXEMPT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – exemption Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1222.1 - 9 AMWA and AWWA agree with EPA’s proposal that all deicing activities take place in an area where available ADF is actively collected. AMWA and AWWA also recommend that the effluent guidelines also ensu re that Airports actively collect ADF regardless of where the ADF is applied, including taxiways. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1199, Comment Excerpt 9. EPA notes that, for the reasons specif i ed in the preamble, EPA did not es tablish requir e ments for aircraft deicing discharges at existing facilities. Such requirements will be determined on a BPJ basis. Additionally, regarding collection of ADF at new sources, EPA did not find a technically feasible manner to collect spent AD F airport wide, and therefore limited the scope of collection for new sources to those areas where ADF was applied. 25_GAL_EXEMPT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – exemption Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 22 Dictating a maximum amount of ADF to be us ed for pre - taxi deicing in an ELG impinges directly on the FAA’s primary and exclusive jurisdiction over safety, which in this instance it has entrusted to the pilots in command. EPA simply has no authority to and cannot regulate ADF usage in this manner. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, Comment Excerpt 5. 25_GAL_EXEMPT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – exemption Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 8 aircraft would need to taxi from the gate to one of the three pads befor e being deiced, but the Proposed Rule would allow only very minimal deicing

– using no more than 25 gallons of ADF

– at the gate. This limit of 25 gallons of ADF could pose a safety hazard from planes taxiing covered with ice and snow.116 [FOOTNOTE: 116 It is inappropriate for EPA to dictate what maximum volume of deicing fluid may be applied to aircraft

– this relates directly to aviation safety and thus is clearly within the jurisdiction of the FAA. See generally Section III.A above.] Finally, sending bot h large and small planes to the same pad could be problematic, because jet blast presents a hazard to small planes.117 [FOOTNOTE: 117 See Ishihara Affidavit, 17.] Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, Comment Excerpt 5. EPA do es not require a single pad for aircraft deicing. If an airport prefers to have multiple smaller pads to allow for vairous jet sizes they may do so. It is likely that a new source will be required to build multiple deicing pads to support all deicing act ivities at their airport.11 25_GAL_EXEMPT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – exemption Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 12 The proposed rule uses a value specific to one airport in a specific climatic region. While we have not checked with Alaskan facilit ies, we would like to have the flexibility in the ELG to account for local climatic variability. One consideration is to have a recommended value in the ELG followed by a phrase such as, "or as determined by local safety and climatic conditions." Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, Comment Excerpt 5. 25_GAL_EXEMPT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – exemption Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 62 EPA also has not distinguished whether the deicing fluid applied for safe taxiing is considered available for collection or exempt from the airport’s applicable collection requirements. Because such fluid is applied in limited quantities where collection m ay not occur, it should not be factored into the airport’s collection efficiency. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, Comment Excerpt 5. 25_GAL_EXEMPT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – exemption Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1 245 - 5 Safe - taxi 25 - gallon exclusion (§449.20(b)(1)(i)(A) and §449.20(b)(1)(ii)(B)) should be reduced from capture calculation §449.20(b)(3) The EPA acknowledges that some deicing is required to address critical surfaces on an aircraft prior to taxi to de icing locations. It is not clearly stated whether or not the volume of or - " - ADF ap plied for the critical surfaces is i n c l uded within the calc u lations to determine 20% 60% collection if the airport is relying on the mass balance approach of demonstrating compliance as provided for in §449.20(b)(3). The application of small volumes of ADF to prepare aircraft for safe taxiing conditions will generally not be conducted in areas designated for deicing or designed for spent deicing fluid collection. Therefore, this volume should not be defined as "available ADF". The EPA should modify §449.20(b)(3) to include specific language indicating that any ADF volumes applied within the limits of the safe - taxi provisions be defined as "unavailable ADF" and therefore not inc l uded with the application/collection calculation used to determine compliance with the percent collection requirement, assuming the permittee is utilizing §449.20(b)(3) as the compliance measure. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 00 38 - 1216.1, Comment Excerpt 5. 25_GAL_EXEMPT - 25 Gallon safe taxiing – exemption Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1245 - 6 Safe - taxi 25 gallon exclusion is arbitrary - §449.20(b)(1)(i)(A) and §449.20(b)(1)(ii)(B) The volume of ADF fluid allowed for safe - taxi appears to be developed by using the Denver International Airport safe taxi limit as a template. This value does not appear to have been derived through any scientifically -12 supported analysis and may be inappropriate. It is reasonable to assume that th e safe - taxi required volume will vary significantly based on aircraft type, climate conditions, distance to contained deicing location, and other factors. the need for deicing prior to taxiing an aircraft is acknowledged by the EPA, there should be If more analysis regarding what the appropriate 'volume is to accomplish the desired goal of this deicing. The volume of ADF required to accomplish this may be - higher in some instances, which would directly impact the "ADF available for capture" and therefore di rectly impact an airport's ability to comply with the collection requirements under the proposed ELG. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, Comment Excerpt 5. ADF_ADDITIVE - ADF Additives Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1192.1 - 6 An important aspect of the question of airplane deicing fluid regulation that the proposed rule was not able to address is the establishment of effluent limitation guidelines for ADF additives, especially methylbenzotriazole (MeBT). MeBT is a corrosion inhibitor found in ADF, and has been shown by several studies to be toxic for microbes (Gruden et al. 2001, Cornell et al. 1999) and to bioaccumulate in aquatic vertebrates downstream of airport facilities (Cancilla et al. 2003) . The proposed rule explains the lack of limitation guidelines for ADF additives as due to the classification of concentrations of these chemicals in ADF as trade secrets. This is unfortunate considering the environmental impact of these chemicals. I recom mend that the EPA investigate possible methods for regulating MeBT and possibly other additives in ADF if the concentrations of these chemicals remains unavailable. For example, sampling data of ADF wastewater can be used to determine the amount of MeBT th at reaches wastewater from known ADF usage amounts, even if the MeBT concentrations in the ADF are unknown. Response: In conversations with ADF manufacturers, EPA has been told that the use of triazole compounds in ADF is being discontinued and that triazole use in European ADFs has been phased out. For more information, see TDD Section 6.4. In addition, EPA has performed sampling to evaluate the presence of additives in deicing stormwater. However, as noted in TDD, EPA found that insufficient informa tion is currently available to adequately characterize the extent to which these compounds ar e present in deicing stormwater and their impact. ADF_ADDITIVE - ADF Additives Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1192.1 - 2 My only recommendation is that additi onal investigation of ADF additives would be helpful for future amendment to these ELGs, though the proposed rule has justified its omission of these investigations. Response: EPA thanks this commenter for the input. ADF_ADDITIVE - ADF Additives Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1207.1 - 6 We are also concerned that the USEPA downplayed the additives and the possible harmful effects. Flame retardants and surface tension additives likely contain chemicals that are persistent in the environment13 such as Per fluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), or not easily broken down such as Benzotriazole. Currently alternatives to PFOS pavement deicing products have been developed (e.g. DuPont Cryotech BX36). Please note that mention of the product does not mean an endorsement b y the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE). We are unsure of the makeup of this chemical, but it certainly warrants further investigation. Chemical Oxygen Demand is a good indicator of whether or not the ADF is present, but is no t satisfactory to address the presence of harmful chemicals. If the formulators will not supply information on additives, then it is the responsibility of the USEPA to obtain and analyze samples to determine the content to ensure protection of the environm ent. Product substitution for urea based products and a certification is offered in this standard. It may be appropriate to consider substitutes for products containing PFOS. Response: See the EPA response to comment (ADF_ADDITIVS) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 11 92.1, excerpt 6. EPA analyzed samples of ADF as applied (which due to aircraft safety requirements had to be taken from the nozzle) , and due to the high glycol content very little in the way of additives was seen. Additionally without knowing what comp ounds to look for, it is difficult to tell what would be additives as opposed to potential contamination from other airport operations, and therefore which additives should be controlled through the effluent guideline. Also, not knowing which pollutants t o look for made method refinement very difficult. Moreover, it is likely that some or additives now in use are different from the additives sampled during the data collection stage of this regulation due to the ever changing nature of deicing additives (a s reported by industry). EPA notes that permit authorities may use BPJ authority to establish appropriate limitations for additives at specific airports, especially as new information on additives becomes available ADF_ADDITIVE - ADF Additives Comment Info : EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 26 Discussion of Environmental Impacts: Page 44709, Section X, (A), Environmental Impacts: Under this section the EPA has solicited additional information on the identity of deicer ingredients, and the quantities that are us ed. EQRR would like to direct the EPA to the TRB's ACRP Project 02 - 01, "Aircraft Deicing and Airfield Anti - Icing Formulations: Aquatic Toxicity and Biochemical Oxygen Demand". The information contained within the document appears to be consistent with the experiences of EQRR. (As a recycler of spent ADF, producing an Industrial Grade PG, our processes have to remove as many of the contaminants as possible. To accomplish this task, we have studied, and continue to study, the composition of the spent ADF/Stor mwater being processed to ensure that we can effectively remove these components.) Response: EPA thanks this commenter for suggesting the TRB report pertaining to ADF additives. The report provided good general information about ADF additives; however, t he report acknowledged that there are knowledge and data gaps related to the additives. EPA found that insufficient information is currently available to adequately characterize the extent to which these compounds ar e present in deicing stormwater and thei r impact.14 ADF_ADDITIVE - ADF Additives Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 38 TDD Page 6 - 4, Section 6.2.2: Type IV fluids do not necessarily have a higher concentration of freeze point depressant than other formulations/types. It is the composition and ratio of additives that differ greatly between Type I and Type IV ADFs. Response : EPA thanks this commenter for the input; this language has been corrected in the final TDD. ADF_ADDITIVE - ADF Additives Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1223.1 - 3 In addition to the glycols many aircraft deicing fluids contain additives to increase their efficacy. These additives, many of which are toxic and carcinogenic in their own right, include "dietyhlene glycol, ethylene oxide, acetaldehyde, dioxane, high - molecular weight polymers, polyamines, triazoles, ureas, sodium nitrate, sodium benzoate, borax, and benzotriazoles."6 [FOOTNOTE: 6 Griesemer, Matthew J., Welcome Aboard: Aircraft Deicing Fluid and the Environmental Epidemic It is Causing, 72 J. Air L. & Com. 727, 736.] Response: EPA thanks this commenter for the input on ADF additives. Also see response to this comment code category,EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1192., Excerpt number 6. ADF_ADDITIVE - ADF Additives Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 4 We strongly encourage EPA to conduct studies to identify the chemicals and their toxicity i n formulations of ADF and issue guidance that a permitting authority may use in reissuing permits. Response: See Comment response (ADF_ADDITIVES) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1207.1 excerpt 6. ADF_ADDITIVE - ADF Additives Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 14 Page 44690, Section VII.D.2. Toxic effluent limitations are necessary. EPA’s lack of information on ADF additives is not sufficient reason to exclude these highly toxic chemicals from inclusion in this ELG. If additional data collection is necessary, then the Agency should undertake these tasks and include relevant toxic effluent limitations in the regulation. Response: EPA requested the information on ADF additives from chemical manufacturers, but they declined to provide this information. Given t he time and resources of continuing to pursue this information from chemical manufacturers, some of whom might not fall under EPA’s authority to compel information under the Clean Water Act, and the lack of other available information on the extent to whic h these additives are present in deicing stormwater and their impact, EPA decided not to include ADF additives15 within the scope of today’s rulemaking. Permit writers are free to establish limitations for ADF additives on a BPJ basis in the context of indi vidual, site - specific permits. See Comment response (ADF_ADDITIVES) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1207.1 excerpt 6. ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1207.1 - 7 For the sake of simplicity, we would urge the USEPA to ask for reporting of total rather than available ADF. A percentage of a percentage leaves more room for misunderstanding and errors in reporting. Response: There is no ADF reporting requirement in th e final regulation. ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208 - 3 The basis of EPA's 80% number for the amount of applied Type I ADF that is available for recovery seems to be conservatively high. This number assumes that only 20%of applied ADF is removed from the application area on the aircraft or is lost by being wind - blown, etc. Industry data and data recorded at some airport's deicing pads show that fugitive ADF can be up to 40% of the applied volume. The accuracy of this assumed amount available for recovery is critical in establishing the benchmark to which an airport will be held for its compliance recovery rate. Ultimately, the goal of these ELGs is to reduce the impact of ADF to bodies of waters surrounding ai rports. Has the EPA considered how much ADF permeates vegetation and soils surrounding paved surfaces where deicing takes place? In these areas never natural biodegradation can take place and thereby significant portions of the ADF reach these waters. This is not a de minimis amount. Most of the applied ADF which is adhered to the aircraft is sheared off early in its takeoff roll. This ADF is deposited on the runway surface and can drain eventually to the grassy infield areas. The EPA should consider provid ing quantitative documentation regarding the fate of fugitive ADF if assumptions such as 80% available for recovery are going to be used. The EPA should also consider reviewing additional data from centralized deicing pads in use, and the option for an ind ividual airport to demonstrate, by documentation, if the % of fugitive ADF at their facility is higher than 20%, and ultimately adjust the amount available for recovery. Response: For the final regulation, available ADF is defined by EPA as 75 percent of the sprayed deicing fluid and 10 percent of the sprayed anti - icing fluid, excluding sprayed fluids used for defrosting or deicing for safe taxiing. See Section 9.5.2 of the TDD and the Definitions in the Final Rule Preamble. EPA requested but did not rece ive specific data documenting alternative available ADF amounts typical for this industry. EPA also did not identify national data to determine how much ADF permeates vegetation or surrounding soils. EPA has provided flexibility in the final regulatory req uirements for demonstration of compliance using pre - approved technologies, demonstration that an alternative technology(ies) will comply, and/or use of pollution prevention credits against the NSPS collection requirement.16 Also see response in this comment code category to Document Control Number: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Excerpt number : 59 ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1213.2 - 1 Proposed 40 CFR Part 449, Page 44714 XIV. Solicitation of Data and Comments A.1 . Airport - specific data on current ADF capture rates DIA's ADF collection system is essentially a passive trench drain design with gravity flow to collection tanks or retention ponds. Some ADF is also collected through area inlets and edge/under drains. At DIA, ADF collected for recycling is derived from dedicated deicing pads. ADF collected and discharged to the POTW is derived from limited deicing areas (e.g., concourse gates) and taxiway/runway areas. The capture rates previously provided by DIA reflect ADF collected from both deicing pads and other areas at DIA. Response: Denver reported that they collect 68 percent of their applied ADF; with 42 percent recycled and identified as collected from the deicing pad system and 26 percent discharged to their POTW and identified as collected from limited deicing areas and taxiway/runway areas. See Denver Site Visit Report and comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 01213.2, Comment Excerpt 1. Based on Denver airport usage estimates, 90 percent is Type I deicing fluid and 1 0 percent is Type IV deicing fluid. Available Type I ADF is 75 percent of applied, available Type IV ADF is 10 percent of applied. Thus 68.5 percent of the applied ADF is estimated to be available ADF (90 x 0.75 + 10 x 0.10). Since the airport estimates th at they recycle 42 percent of applied ADF (and that amount is collected from the CDP system) then that system has achieved collection of 61 percent (42/68.5 x 100) of available ADF. ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 24 It is assumed when it stated "collect at least 60 percent of applied ADF", or collect at least 20 percent of applied ADF", it was meant to read "available ADF". Response: The commenter is correct. EPA's final rule NSPS collection requirements are a percentage of available ADF. ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 59 TDD Page 10 - 19, section 10.5.2 makes direct reference to th e study (Switzenbaum, et al, 1999) as the basis that 80% of the applied Type I and 10% of the applied Type IV is available for capture. In fact, the study states that it is estimated that 75% to 80% of the Type I would be available for capture. The EPA has chosen to use the upper percentage (on what basis?). The 5% difference, using the EPA's estimation of applied Type I is approximately 1,125,000 - gallons per year that may not be available for capture. The same study states (§4.) that the majority of Type I V remains on the aircraft, but does not give an estimated range. What was the basis for the EPA to select 10%?17 Response: For the final rule analysis, EPA has modified the estimated percentage of Type I ADF available for capture from 80 percent to 75 perc ent based on the lower end of the range reported in Switzenbaum, et al, 1999. EPA based the estimated percentage of Type IV ADF available for capture on best professional judgment and reported characteristics of Type IV fluids which are designed specifical ly to adhere to the aircraft and shear off the wing at the time of takeoff (and would then become fugitive emissions outside of the deicing collection area). ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 3 For use of t he ELG in a general permit such as the MSGP we believe it is good to have a definition of Available ADF specified. We assume EPA has conducted the research to arrive at the 80 percent of the sprayed deicing fluid and 10 percent of the sprayed anti - icing fl uid. We believe it would be good to have the flexibility in the ELG so the permitting authority can require in an individual permit that the facility develop site - specific numbers to be used during the term of the permit. Response: See the comment respon se to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208, Comment Excerpt 3. ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 8 Page 44686, Section VII.A.1. The statement that Type IV fluid “is not available for discharge” must be substantiated. More fluid is typically applied to the plane than can adhere to the plane to make sure that all surfaces are covered. Therefore, some Type IV fluids will be discharged at the deicing point as overspray. In addition, a certain amount of Type IV fluids that remain on the aircraft until takeoff will be discharged at takeoff by wind shear. Type IV fluids discharged during takeoff will be outside the centralized deicing pad collection zone. Therefore, Type IV fluid is ‘available’ and is being discharged at the point of deicing and at the point of takeoff. Response: See the response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 59. ADF_AVAIL - A ssessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 - 8 The proposed ELG does not adequately account for applied Type I ADF that is unavailable for capture due to overspray/wind losses, fluid that remains on aircraft, pavement wetting, losses from plowing and or vehicular tracking, and other losses. The availab le - for - capture amount is highly dependent on the volume applied, current weather conditions, and pavement conditions prior to application. During dry pavement, high wind, or low - volume deicing events the percent available for capture can approach zero due to minimum pavement wetting, wind losses, evaporation, and lack of pooling. In addition, during heavy snow events, the impact of snow removal operations and/or vehicular and aircraft traffic can also have an impact on the collection efficiencies. In additi on, source reduction efforts undertaken by deicing entities will reduce the availability of spent ADF for capture. In fact, this has likely already occurred since the time of survey data collection. This comment relates to Comment #4 above, where the curre nt ELG language does not mandate the credit of pollution prevention methods toward the collection requirement.18 The evaluation by the EPA to determine the ADF available for capture does not consider the source reduction efforts that may occur since the time of its dataset. For example, during low - volume deicing events, a specific tenant at MSP utilizes low - flow deicing nozzles that reduce the flow rate during application by an order of magnitude. This results in far less fluid use during these types of event s and subsequently far less fluid dripping off the plane. This low volume has a tendency only to wet the pavement in the ADF containment area and is not sufficient to flow toward the nearest catch basin. This effectively makes 0% of this applied fluid avai lable for capture. As more deicing is conducted in ways that reduce the total volume of fluid use, the percent available for capture will be reduced. The EPA should modify the available ADF definition to better reflect the wide variety of conditions that a re present during deicing activity and the fact that future source reduction efforts will affect the percent of ADF available for capture. The 80% proposed recovery threshold should be lowered to better reflect historic data and the inherent variability in deicing operations, and the EPA should review the number at some frequency to incorporate data from then - current deicing practices. Finally, it should be important for the EPA to support pollution prevention activities. The percent capture method is not a prospective approach to encourage the reduction in use of fluid application. Response: The final ELG does account for the ADF losses noted by the commenter and available ADF does not include ADF amounts used for aircraft defrosting and safe taxiing prio r to aircraft deicing. See the response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208, Comment Excerpt 3. EPA wants to encourage pollution prevention practices and technologies that result in lower ADF usage amounts and has included provisions in the final regulation for a pollution prevention credit against the available ADF collection requirement in the NSPS. ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 22 Page 44696, Section VII. J. 2.a. EPA indicates “that 80% of applied Type I and Type II ADF falls onto the pavement at the deicing area and is available for discharge”. This should be restated that 80% of applied ADF is available for collection at the deicing pad, 100% of the applied Type I and Type II ADF is available for discharge; it may not be readily available for collection at the deicing pad but it is still discharged to the environment. EPA indicates that only 10% of Type IV is available for discharge. Again, this is not correct language, as 10% may be available for collection at the deicing pad; a significant additional amount will be discharged from the airfield following take - off. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208, Comment Excerpt 3. EPA does not have definitive data as to the fate of the fugit ive ADF, however it is likely that at least a small portion is discharged, the preamble and the Technical Development Document have been modified accordingly. ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 23 Page 44696 , Section VII. J. 2.a. The 60% collection level that was used as the industry standard at current airports is on total glycol applied to airplanes, at pads and at gates, and already accounts for the amount that cannot be easily collected. It is not 60% of what is ‘available’. If EPA believes that 80% of ADF is available for collection, then any collection system should be designed to collect this entire amount. So, it should be made clear in the document that the proposed 60% collection level in the propose d ELG is19 really only 48% of applied ADF, even though a collection level of 60% of applied ADF is currently being achieved by the industry. Response: See the comment response in this comment code category to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1207.1, excerpt 7 and the r esponse in comment code category REQ_100 to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1168 Excerpt number : 1 ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 40 Page 5 - 4, Section 5.1.1.4. EPA states that 96 airports that conduct aircraft dei cing have no discharge of spent ADF. Zero discharge of ADF at any facility that deices aircraft is not possible. EPA has documented that the best airports that collect spent ADF can only collect up to 60%. So at least 40% of the applied ADF is outside of a ny collection system and is discharged. 100% collection is not possible, as recognized by EPA. EPA should discount these responses. Response: In the TDD, EPA identifies that 96 airports reported no discharge of spent ADF in their questionnaire response a nd provide a summary of the responses according to discharge type. However, EPA agrees with the commenter that fugitive ADF emissions from evaporation, overspray, and tracking and dripping, during taxiing and takeoff, are difficult if not impossible to tr ack and will likely result in direct discharges. For these reasons, for the final rule EPA concludes that except in limited circumstances, all airports that perform deicing operations are direct dischargers. See Section V of the final preamble and the TD D. For purposes of the final rule, EPA does not consider these fugitive emissions to be available for collection and control. ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 13 EPA’s Collection Standard is Based on a Flawed Calculation Regarding “Availability” EPA has proposed that 80 percent of applied Type I ADF and 10 percent of applied Type IV ADF is available for collection. EPA based its 80 percent statistic (for Type I ADF ) on a 1999 report generated at a workshop focused best management practices for airport deicing stormwater.17 [Footnote 17: TDD at 10 - 19 (citing Switzenbaum, et al. 1999. Workshop: Best Practices for Airport Deicing Stormwater. DCN AD00893).] The report i ndicated that 75 - 80 percent of Type I ADF is deposited on airfield pavement from overspray and dripping. EPA is mistaken to rely on this report to conclude that 80 percent of Type I ADF is available for collection. The report focused on significant deicing activities that occurred during precipitation events, not infrequent or dry - weather defrosting events during which significantly less ADF is applied and thus available for collection.18 [Footnote 18: The term “defrosting” may be interpreted slightly diffe rently depending upon location and local weather conditions. As set forth in these comments, ACI - NA believes that EPA must address the defrosting issue if it is to pursue final ELGs based on a collection standard. Hence, EPA will be responsible for definin g the term, but ACINA will poll its membership and suggest an appropriate definition if EPA concurs that defrosting must be addressed in any final rule.] As shown in the Charts XX [See submittal for Figure 1 and Figure 2 which show DTW 2007/2008 and 2008/2 009 Deicing Fluid Fate], recent data from Detroit Wayne County Metropolitan Airport (DTW)

– an airport considered an industry leader in deicing fluid management and collection and found by EPA to meet BAT

– indicates that 25 - 27% of applied ADF is unavailab le for collection. During20 defrosting, much less ADF is used, and thus, much less reaches the pavement, making it potentially available for collection. ACI - NA recommends that EPA revisit its “available” determinations to more reliably account for actual ADF availability, including during defrosting operations. Response: Available ADF is defined by EPA as 75 percent of the sprayed deicing fluid and 10 percent of the sprayed anti - icing fluid, excluding sprayed fluids used for defrosting or deicing for safe ta xiing. Defrosting is defined by EPA as the removal of frost contamination from critical components of an aircraft when there has been no active precipitation. See the definitions in EPA's Final Regulatory language. Therefore, EPA's estimate based on the Sw itzenbaum report was not meant to represent defrosting. ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 14 ”Availability” depends on numerous variables associated with actual airport deicing operations, particularly duri ng dry weather defrosting. These relatively universal variables include the amounts of Type I and Type IV ADF that: • remains on the aircraft • adheres to, and soaks into pavement surfaces • is carried away as wind drift or via jet blast • is tracked out o f the area on the tires of aircraft and ground support equipment • is lost to evaporation, biodegradation, and other natural processes that both inhibit collection but do not result in actual discharge. In addition, other factors impact the amount of ADF a vailable for collection on an airport - specific basis. These include: • climate or weather • collection system configuration • deicing operation (e.g., dry weather defrosting versus deicing) • size of the airport/number of operations • aircraft fleet mix • other miscellaneous site - specific factors. The fraction of defrosting ADF that is collectable is heavily dependent on local conditions, especially climate. A lack of precipitation highly impedes the collection of applied ADF. The impact of this phenomenon on an airport’s ability to collect ADF can be significant when a large portion of overall ADF usage is associated with defrosting operations. For this reason, it is recommended that separate collection calculations be conducted on ADF used for defrosting v ersus deicing. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208, Comment Excerpt 3. EPA is not including ADF amounts used for defrosting in the determination of available ADF as it applies to this rule. ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available A DF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 15 EPA has oversimplified its “availability” approach. The Agency’s use of a constant fraction of availability does not accurately account for significant differences in the amounts and fate of ADF applied during deicing, particularly in comparison to defrost ing operations. The latter may constitute significant amounts of a total ADF application at an airport, and yet cannot possibly generate 80 percent collection availability. The amount of fluid available for collection is also impacted by the quantity of fl uid applied, how much fluid reaches the ground, and the actual weather at the time of application. For those airports located in warmer climates that only occasionally apply minimal amounts of ADF, the amount of ADF available for collection in fact could b e zero or so close to zero that collection would provide no environmental benefit. In all cases, defrosting presents little or no environmental threat because little or no ADF is actually discharged. In essence, evaporation or other natural degradation rep resent essentially a 90

– 100 ADF collection standard in terms of preventing discharge to waters of the U.S. Specifically, defrosting operations typically result in limited areas of damp pavement under a defrosted aircraft. Such fluid quickly begins evapor ating and seeping into pavement surfaces, meaning a very limited amount of21 ADF is available for safe collection either immediately after a defrosting operation or during subsequent precipitation events. This fluid is also found to biodegrade quickly.19 [Fo otnote 19: 19 Research has also shown that ADF biodegrades significantly over relatively short periods of time. See Low Temperature Biodegradation of Airport De - Icing Fluids, Water Science and Technology, Vol 48, No 9, pp 103

– 111 (2003) indicating “[t]he m easured surface biodegradation rates for de - icing products based on ethylene/diethylene glycol (Konsin), propylene glycol (Kilfrost) and potassium acetate (Clearway) at 4°C were 0.082, 0.073 and 0.033 day

– 1. The resulting reductions in the potential BOD lo adings, of a single application of a typical mixture of these products, over a 5 day biodegradation period are predicted to be 32.9%, 30.2% and 21.4%, respectively at 8°C, 4°C and 1°C.” (note, this study also included potassium acetate, a pavement deicer)] Therefore, nearly 100 percent of ADF is prevented from discharge. Yet, EPA appears focused only on collection as opposed to discharge prevention. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208, Comment Excerpt 3. EPA is not including ADF amounts used for defrosting in the determination of available ADF as it applies to this rule. EPA wants to encourage pollution prevention practices and technologies that result in lower ADF usage amounts and discharge and has included provisions in the fi nal regulation for a pollution prevention credit against the available ADF collection requirement. ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 21 Overall, the amount of ADF available for collection during dry weathe r defrosting events is insignificant. EPA must account for this factor in establishing both the scope of the Proposed Rule and the collection requirements. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208, Comment Excerpt 3. EPA is not incl uding ADF amounts used for defrosting in the determination of available ADF as it applies to this rule. ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 33 EPA’s Assumptions Regarding Available ADF Are Inaccurate and Overly Rigid. As discussed in section II.B, the assumptions EPA has made regarding the amount of applied ADF available for collection are inaccurate and do not account for site and weather - specific factors impacting availability. These inaccurate assumptio ns with regards to available ADF also impact EPA’s proposed collection requirements. Rather, EPA must establish a flexible way to account for conditions that impact the amount of ADF that is available for collection. In addition, because “uncollected” does not mean “discharged to waters of the U.S.”, EPA should carefully consider how to address practices that do not result collection but also do not result in discharge. In the Proposed Rule, EPA has taken a far too simplistic, one - size fits - all approach to a highly complex site and multi - party operation. Response: See the comment response in this comment code category to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208, Comment Excerpt 3. EPA is not including ADF amounts used for defrosting in the determination of available ADF a s it applies to this rule. Further, the final rule includes multiple compliance alternatives that provide enough flexibility to address ways to demonstrate NSPS ADF collection requirement. EPA wants to encourage pollution prevention practices and technolo gies that result in lower ADF usage amounts and22 discharge and has included provisions in the final regulation for a pollution prevention credit against the NSPS ADF collection requirement. See response in this comment code category to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1 239.1 Excerpt number : 40 ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 83 EPA Mistakenly Assumes All Pavement Deicer and All Applied ADF that Is Not Collected Will Be Discharged. In calculating the baseline pollutant loads and load reductions attributable to the Proposed Rule, EPA assumed that 100 percent of all available ADF that is not collected will reach outfalls. Similarly EPA assumes 100 percent of pavement deicer reaches outfalls. These assumptions do not accoun t for the loading reduction that naturally occurs through evaporation and degradation in ponds, drainage systems, grass, etc. Response: EPA did not assume that all applied ADF that is not collected will be discharged, though EPA notes that fugitive emissi ons of ADF may have the potential for direct discharge. See Section 9 of the TDD for an explanation of how EPA developed baseline loads for this industry. EPA did not have, nor did commenters or industry provide, data to assess what percentage of pavement deicer is discharged either nationally or on an airport - specific basis. Therefore, absent alternative information and consistent with the proposal, EPA's pavement loading analysis for the final rule evaluated the maximum possible discharges. Even if EPA were to adjust these loadings by 50% or more, the costs for reducing ammonia discharges are reasonable in terms of the reductions that will be achieved. ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 159 APPENDIX D Ph otographic Evidence of Limited Deicing Fluid Available for Collection Following Defrosting During defrosting events, application of aircraft deicing fluid (ADF) typically results in only damp or moist pavement conditions under a deiced plane, with no or li mited flow to drains and collection systems. Glycol recovery vehicle (GRV) collection is difficult under such conditions. The pavement areas under defrosted aircraft will typically dry within a few hours, especially under sunny conditions, as the ADF volat ilizes and/or degrades. Nearly all ADF applied for defrosting is thus, in effect, uncollectible. The example photographs below show the limited ADF that remains on pavement after aircraft defrosting. Tallahassee Regional Airport: These two photographs show the ADF remaining on the pavement after the defrosting of two RJ's at Tallahassee Regional Airport. The two aircraft were parked at adjacent gates. As the crew finished defrosting the first aircraft, they moved directly to the second. After the second air craft departed, the photographs were taken. The first aircraft had been gone for about 20 minutes and the second is just out of the picture taxiing to the runway. As the photographs show, even after as short as 20 minutes, the amount of material that is av ailable for collection is significantly reduced. Due to safety concerns with the second aircraft starting and taxiing from the adjacent spot, the recovery crew would not have been able to get to the first spot any sooner, even if the SASO/airline had staff available for collection. [See submittal for photos] Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport: These three photographs show the ADF remaining following defrosting activities at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. Photograph 1 shows a swath of deicin g fluid on the ramp as the slick streak directly behind the ramp worker’s foot. Photograph 2 shows that 'no visible deicer' remains on the ramp by the time the23 aircraft pushes back, allowing recovery operations to safely begin. Photograph 3 shows the water streaks from the ramp scrubber after the deicing area is cleaned. [See submittal for photos] Response: EPA thanks the commenter for the photographic evidence of limited deicing fluid after defrost operations. EPA is not including ADF amounts used for de frosting in the determination of available ADF as it applies to this rule. ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 1 The assumption EPA has made regarding the amount of ADF available for collection is fundamental ly flawed and does not take into consideration many factors such as airport location and climate. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 33. ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 9 In the Proposed Rule, EPA assumes that 80% of applied Type 1 and 10% of Type IV ADF is available for collection. Yet, there is no evidence that EPA used established engineering methods or experimental controls to determine th ese percentages. SLC has up to 200 potential dry weather deicing days per deicing season. EPA seems to be implying that SLC should have the capability to collect the same percentage of applied ADF during dry weather deicing events as well as storm related deicing events. The varied climates that exist throughout the United States will significantly impact individual airports collection capability and capacity. Dry weather deicing collection rates are insignificant compared to storm related deicing activiti es. The supporting EPA documentation states that the collection capacities are based on data collected from a few airports. EPA rulemaking must be based on data that is representative of the numerous geographical differences among airports and these drasti c regional differences must be addressed in calculating the percentage of ADF available for collection.EPA assumes that if ADF is applied and not collected, then it is discharged. However, this assumption does not take into consideration absorption, transp ortation, evaporation and degradation processes that are actively occurring, reducing a significant percentage of ADF available for collection and substantially reducing the amount of glycol that is discharged into the surface waters. As previously stated, it is not possible for SLC to meet the proposed collection standard with the current glycol collection and conveyance system. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208, Comment Excerpt 3. EPA is not including ADF amounts used for def rosting in the determination of available ADF as it applies to this rule. ADF_AVAIL - Assessment of available ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1245 - 8 §449.2 "Available ADF" for Type I ADF is too high and does not reflect historic airport data The: proposed ELG does not adequately account for applied Type I ADF that is unavailable for capture due to overspray/wind - losses, fluid that remains on aircraft, pavement wetting, losses from plowing and or vehicular tracking, and other losses. The available - for - capture amount is highly dependent on the volume24 applied, current weather conditions, and pavement conditions prior to application. During dry pavement, h igh wind, or low - volume deicing events the percent available for capture can approach zero due to minimum pavement wetting, wind losses, evaporation, and lack of pooling. In addition, during heavy snow events, the impact of snow removal operations and/or v ehicular and aircraft traffic can also have an impact on the collection efficiencies. In addition, source reduction efforts undertaken by deicing entities will reduce the availability of spent ADF for capture. In fact, this has likely already occurred sinc e the time of survey data collection. This comment relates to Comment #4 above, where the current ELG language does not mandate the credit of pollution prevention methods toward the collection requirement. The evaluation by the EPA to determine the ADF ava ilable for capture does not consider the source reduction efforts that may occur since the time of its dataset. For example, during low - volume deicing events, a specific tenant at MSP utilizes low - flow deicing nozzles that reduce the flow rate during appli cation by an order of magnitude. This results in far less fluid use during these types of events and subsequently far less fluid dripping off the plane. This low volume ha..S a tendency only to wet the pavement in the ADF containment area and is not suffic ient to flow toward - the nearest catch basin. This effectively makes 0% of this applied fluid available for capture. As more deicing is conducted - in ways that reduce the total volume of fluid use; the percent available for capture will be reduced. The EPA s hould modify the available ADF definition to better reflect the wide variety of conditions that are present during deicing activity and the fact that future source reduction efforts will affect the percent of ADF available for capture. The 80%proposed reco very threshold should be lowered to better reflect historic data and the inherent variability in deicing operations, and the EPA should review the number at some frequency to incorp4orate data from then - current deicing practices. Finally, it should be impo rtant for the EPA to support pollution prevention activities. The percent capture method is not a prospective approach to encourage the reduction in use of fluid application. Response: The final regulation does account for the ADF losses noted by the comm enter and available ADF does not include ADF amounts used for aircraft defrosting and safe taxiing prior to aircraft deicing. See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208, Comment Excerpt 3. EPA wants to encourage pollution prevention practices and technologies that result in lower ADF usage amounts and has included provisions in the final regulation for a pollution prevention credit against the NSPS ADF collection requirement. Also see response in the comment code category to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1 239.1 , Excerpt number : 40 ADF_DATA - Airport specific ADF usage data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1190.1 - 1 According to the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (TSAIA), between 250,000 and 500,000 gallons of deicing fluids are used at th e TSAIA each year; Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this ADF usage related data. EPA's estimate of average normalized ADF usage at TSAIA based on the airline questionnaire data was 420,735 gallons/year.25 ADF_DATA - Airport specific ADF usage data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1213.2 - 3 Technical Development Document, page 10 - 9 Table 10 - 2. ADF Estimates Based on Airline Detailed Questionnaire Responses, Airport ID 1028, Denver International DIA understands the 1,043,138 gallons per year PG/EG attributed to DIA in this table is an estimate based on airline questionnaire responses and the volume of airport operations. ADF usage data was not requested in DIA's questionnaire. DIA does track ADF usage for each winter season. The actual applied ADF (Type I and IV combined) volume average is 837, 761 gallons (non - normalized) and 712,227 gallons (normalized) for the three winter seasons covered by the questionnaire (2002 through 2005). For the same timeframe, fluid type averaged 90% PG Type I and 10% PG Type IV. Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this ADF usage information. EPA's evaluation of the airline - based data for Denver International also shows that 90 percent of the reported ADF use was Type I and 10 percent was Type IV. The detailed airline questionnaire data submitted on ADF usage at Denver International represented 77 percent of airline departures at the airport and the total reported normalized ADF usage is greater than that submitted in the comment (prior to any application of EPA's extrapolation methodology to represent all departu res). To be conservative, EPA is retaining its ADF usage estimates developed at proposal for assessing costs and loadings for the final rule. Those data were collected from the entities using the ADF and were certified as part of the detailed airline ques tionniare responses. EPA chose to solicit this data from airlines as a result of discussions with industry informing the Agency that the airlines were the most reliable source of this information. ADF_DATA - Airport specific ADF usage data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1213.2 - 4 Technical Development Document, page 10 - 9 Table 10 - 2 ADF Estimates Based on Airline Detailed Questionnaire Responses, Airport ID 1028, Denver International This table shows a 4% (41,726 gallons) use of EG Type I ADF at DIA. The use of EG - based ADF at DIA is prohibited by DIA regulation. These estimates of ADF usage are based on airline questionnaire responses. Unless this information is CBI, DIA requests that EPA identify the source of the reported EG Type I use. If the 4% E G Type I resulted from extrapolation due to insufficient data, the extrapolation is in error and the table should be revised to reflect that there is no use of EG - Type I ADF at DIA. Response: In a certified non - CBI submittal, an airline operating at DIA reported Type I Ethylene Glycol usage at the Denver International airport for all three years covered by the airline questionnaire. ADF_DATA - Airport specific ADF usage data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1213.2 - 5 Technical Development Document, pa ge 10 - 13 Table 10 - 4. ADF Annual Usage Estimates for All Airports that Received the Airport Questionnaire, Airport ID 1028, Denver International The actual annual non - normalized ADF usage volumes for DIA are 753,985 gallons PG Type I and 83,776 gallons PG T ype IV. The actual normalized volumes for the same period are 671,047 gallons PG Type I and 41,888 gallons PG Type IV. Since the 2006/2007 winter season, DIA has observed a 5% increase in the use of PG Type IV (and a corresponding decrease in PG Type I use ) over the questionnaire reporting26 period. Similar increases/decreases have been communicated to DIA by other airports and the fluid supplier. Please note that the use of EG(Type I and Type IV) is prohibited at DIA by airport regulation. Response: See re sponses to comments EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1213.2, Comment Excerpts 3 and 4. ADF_DATA - Airport specific ADF usage data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 127 EPA Estimates Are Inconsistent with Readily Available Airport Usage Data ATA also compared the EPA estimates to an independent data source: ADF usage publicly reported by airports. These comparisons consistently indicate that EPA’s usage estimates are not representative of historic or current ADF usage. 1. ADF Usage at Boston Logan The EPA aver age ADF usage estimate, ATA estimates and airport reported usage volumes are summarized below. Based on both ATA estimates and airport records, the EPA estimate of ADF usage at BOS overestimates usage by approximately a factor of 2. The data also indicate that ATA estimates of airport - wide ADF usage more accurately reflects airport records. [See Table: Volume of PG/EG Applied at BOS by Season, pg 141] [FOOTNOTE:320 Data collected from Phase I study (CDM 2008).] 2. ADF Usage at Washington Dulles Internationa l Airport Data from airport deicing records, ATA estimates of ADF usage and the EPA estimated use are summarized below and indicate that the assumed EPA application rate overestimates the application rates by a factor of between 3 - 4.321 [FOOTNOTE:321 The F airfax County Water Authority has submitted comments indicating that it believes EPA has overestimated ADF usage at IAD by a factor of 3. Document - 1199 at 4.] These data also indicate that the ATA estimates closely reflect actual airport - wide ADF applicat ion. [See Table: Volume PG/EG Applied at IAD by Season, pg 141] [FOOTNOTE:322 Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Statement of Work for Aircraft Deicing Fluid Recovery, Disposal, and Recycling Management Services for Washington Dulles International Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, May 2009.] 3. ADF Usage at Other Selected Airports Data collected from other airports similarly indicates that the EPA estimate of Airport - wide ADF usage overestimates documented usage information bas ed on airport records. These data are summarized as follows: [See Table: Volume of PG/EG Applied at Each Airport by Season, pg 142] [FOOTNOTE:323 Data collected from End of Season reports.] [FOOTNOTE:324 Gresham Smith and Partners, Data Collected from Draf t Model Calibration Report, 2008.] [FOOTNOTE:325 Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Statement of Work for Aircraft Deicing Fluid Recovery, Disposal, and Recycling Management Services for Washington Dulles International Airport and Ronald Reagan Wa shington National Airport, May 2009.] Based on the information provided above, the ADF usage estimates provided by EPA and which serve as a basis for the cost - benefit analysis are flawed and overestimate actual usage by a significant and variable amount. T hus, the basis for determining the cost of the rule as well as its actual benefits are largely unknown and are not reflective of actual conditions. Response: See comment code ADF_USAGE response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 125. OK ADF_DATA - Airport specific ADF usage data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 24 Some airports have stated that the EPA has shown in the TDD that they have used a deicing fluid, when they in fact not used such material at their airport. For instance, one medium hub airport stated that the EPA showed they had used Ethylene Glycol when they in fact had not done so during that reported time -27 frame. We would recommend the EPA rely on more current, airport - specific data (through outreach from assoc iations as well as the FAA) when calculating these important figures. Response: See comment code ADF_USAGE response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 125. ADF_DATA - Airport specific ADF usage data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 19 These issues and concerns are highlighted by the data the Port Authority has attempted to collect from airlines for aircraft deicing fluid use (actual use, not purchase) at LGA. The following table shows “normalized” deicing fluid use at LGA from the 2002 - 2003 through the 2008 - 2009 seasons, based on information reported by the airlines to the Port Authority. [SEE TABLE WITH EPA ADF DATA TABLE] As shown, the total “normalized” aircraft deicing fluid use ranged from approximate ly 135,000 gallons (in 2005 - 2006) to about 475,000 gallons (in 2003 - 2004). The average fluid use for the 2002 - 2003, 2003 - 2004, and 2004 - 2005 seasons (the three seasons EPA used in its analysis) was approximately 417,000 gallons. The average reported fluid use over the past five seasons

– the basis that the Proposed Rule would establish for determining fluid use

– was about 245,000 gallons. These data, if accurate, would have major implications to the application of the Proposed Rule at LGA. The average nor malized ADF use at LGA over the past five years was well below the 460,000 - gallon threshold in the Proposed Rule. The estimated ADF use for the three - year period EPA used in its analysis was also below the threshold. Estimated fluid use was above the thres hold in only one of the past seven deicing seasons. All of those numbers indicate that LGA would be subject to a 20 percent collection standard rather than a 60 percent standard. Response: The final rule no longer has a nationally applicable collection r equirement for existing airports. See comment code ADF_USAGE response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 125. ADF_DATA - Airport specific ADF usage data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 22 Despite continual and substantial efforts, the Port Authority has historically been provided with limited accurate information from the airlines on the amounts of aircraft deicing fluid applied at JFK. During the 2008 - 2009 deicing season, approximately 1.42 million gallons of Type I fluid (total product) and approximately 0.34 million gallons of Type IV fluid (total product) were used. Most of the airlines reported Type I glycol concentrations of 55 percent; the others reported concentrations of 50 percent. (Type IV glycol use is assumed to be at 100 percent concentration.) Based on these numbers, approximately 0.78 million gallons of Type I glycol (at 100 percent concentration) and approximately 0.34 million gallons of Type IV glycol were applied during the 2008 - 2009 deicing season.30 [S ee table with P ort A uthority ADF usage data ] As shown, the Port Authority estimates for 2008 - 2009 differ substantially (by 70 percent for the Type I glycol and 240 percent for the Type IV glycol) from the numbers presented by EPA. Obviously, one would expect data for 2008 - 2009 to differ from data for the 2002 - 2005 seasons. However, the differences are large enough to cause concern about the use of only three years of data to develop an average. As noted previously, we do not have access to the EPA’s airline qu estionnaire database, so we cannot determine the reasons for the discrepancies. Fluid Use at EWR. The Port Authority has limited data on aircraft deicing fluid use at EWR. Based on the data available, ADF28 usage during the 2006 - 2007, 2007 - 2008, and 2008 - 200 9 seasons was as follows: [SEE TABLE WITH EWR ADF USAGE DATA] Response: See comment code ADF_USAGE response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 125. ADF_DATA - Airport specific ADF usage data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 29 Page 44705, Section VIII. E. EPA states that “these additional airports [the 57 airports immediately following the top 14 in ADF usage], if subjected to a 60 percent capture requirement, would be expected to achieve few additional pounds of pollutant removals relative to Option 3.” This statement is not supported by any facts or calculations by EPA. If the 57 airports potentially to be included, which may use up to 459,000 gallons of ADF each, were to go from 20% capture to 60% capture it could mean a s much as 10,465,000 gallons of additional ADF that is captured. This is a significant amount of potential pollutant removal. If EPA wants to make the statement that applying the 60% capture to the additional 57 facilities would not result in additional po llutant removal then they should make this actual determination based on the usage and collection data for these airports. Response: For the reasons explained in the final preamble, the final rule does not establish nationally applicable requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing airports. Such requirements will continue to be determined on a site - specific, BPJ basis, therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. ADF_DATA - Airport specific ADF usage data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 16 Defrosting Operations Are Too Significant to Ignore in Any “Availability” Calculation. At many airports, a significant percentage of the total applied Type I ADF is used during dry weather defrosting events. The lack of prec ipitation impacts not only the amount of fluid necessary, but also the amount that is available for collection. At southern airports such as Tallahassee Regional and Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airports, all deicing fluid is applied during dry weather defrosting events. Even at northern airports such as Minneapolis - St. Paul, no precipitation occurs during 70 - 75 percent of the deicing days (termed “defrosting days”). Yet those dry weather defrosting days account for only 23 - 28 percent of the total appl ied Type I ADF. Des Moines International Airport uses approximately 40 percent of its ADF for defrosting.20 [Footnote 20: Des Moines International Airport analyzed data from its 2004 - 2005 deicing season and found that out of a total of 67 deicing days, 49 days consisted only of defrosting in the morning with no precipitation. Of the 73,649 gallons of glycol used for that season, 31,670 gallons were applied for frost busting.] Reno - Tahoe International Airport uses approximately 50 percent for defrosting. The percentage may be higher for smaller airports where flights are more likely to be cancelled in actual winter precipitation events, meaning that most ADF is applied in defrosting conditions. In contrast, Pittsburgh International Airport only uses about two percent of its total applied Type I fluid for defrosting.21 [Footnote 21: Over the 2001 - 2009 deicing seasons, PIT data shows an average of 5,296 gallons out of 401,894 total gallons ADF applied was used for defrosting, or about 1.7%.] These significant va riations point to the need for a flexible methodology to determine the actual percentage of total applied ADF that is available for collection on a site by - site basis.29 Response: Based on this comment and others, EPA has modified the applicability of the collection requirement for new sources in the final rule. The final rule only requires new airports that are likely to conduct significant deicing to collect and treat spent ADF and also excludes defrost deicing from the collection and treatment requireme nts. See also comment code MIN_USE_CUTOFF comment response EPA - HQ OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1, Comment Excerpt 9. ADF_DATA - Airport specific ADF usage data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 17 Several airports have assembled data on their ADF usage se parately during defrosting and deicing operations. For example, Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport assembled the data in Table 1 regarding glycol applied during defrosting days and precipitation days over the 20072009 deicing seasons. The data esse ntially shows that less ADF is applied per aircraft during defrosting events (29 - 42 gallons during defrosting compared to 92 - 107 gallons during deicing). At MSP, 23 - 28 percent of the total applied ADF occurred during defrosting days, which accounted for 48 - 49 percent of total aircraft deiced. [See submittal for Table 1. Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Defrosting Data Evaluation, 2006

– 2009] Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this additional data regarding defrost ADF usage versus "weather event" ADF usage. ADF_DATA - Airport specific ADF usage data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 18 Table 2 shows rough estimations of the variations in ADF required to deicing different aircraft in different weather conditions. This data is only an example from one airline application at one airport and is expected to vary by aircraft, airport, weather, and other factors. However, it is indicative of the fact that weather conditions greatly affect quantity of ADF applied. [See submittal for Table 2. Example Estimated ADF Application by Aircraft Type in Various Weather Scenarios for One Airline at One Airport] Response: See comment code ADF_USAGE response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1, Comment Excerpt 3. ADF_DATA - Airport specific ADF usa ge data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 19 At low ADF use airports, the majority of usage is associated with defrosting activities, which generate little if any runoff.22 [Footnote 22: See U.S. EPA, Preliminary Data Summary Airport Deicing Ope rations (Revised) at 5 - 1 (August 2000) Stating “Because fluid used during dry - weather deicing is relatively small compared to that during storm events and does not generally generate contaminated storm water, EPA believes the vast majority of contaminated storm water is generated during precipitation events.”] Defrosting operations do not involve removal of accumulated snow or freezing precipitation, and as a result use much smaller volumes of ADF are required than for deicing operations.23 [Footnote 23: Id . at 4 - 13, noting 20 - 50 gallons of ADF are used per aircraft during defrosting.] Most of the ADF used for defrosting remains on the surface of the aircraft and only a small fraction of applied defrosting30 ADF that falls to the pavement is potentially availa ble for collection. Often, no runoff is generated at all by defrosting.24 [footnote 24: See Appendix C exhibiting the limited deicing fluid that reaches the pavement during defrosting.] Mass balance data collected over several years at Austin - Bergstrom Int ernational Airport in Texas clearly illustrate this phenomena, with less than 10 percent of all applied ADF being collected during mild, dry winters, where the majority of glycol use is for defrosting, while the same collection system captures up to 40 per cent of applied ADF during extreme winters when most of the glycol is used for deicing. Compliance with the 20 percent collection requirement is technologically infeasible for low - use airports that focus primarily on defrosting. Response: See response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 16. ADF_DATA - Airport specific ADF usage data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 29 [See submittal for Table 5. PIT Annual ADF Usage 2002 - 2009] Response: See comment code ADF_USAGE response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 125. ADF_DATA - Airport specific ADF usage data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 158 APPENDIX C Aircraft Deicing Fluid Usage ACRP ADF Usage v. EPA ADF Usage Estimates This table compares EP A’s estimated ADF usage by airport with the ADF usage data reported in ACRP Report 11 - 02 (Task 10)

– Estimate of National Use of Aircraft - and Airfield - Deicing Materials (2008). The ACRP report’s national estimate of 15,200,000 gallons of ADF used was base d on 183 airports. By comparison, the table only compares ADF usage at the 153 airports for which EPA developed estimates. Additionally, EPA developed estimates for many airports for which no data was developed through ACRP (highlighted in yellow). If we w ere to assume EPA’s ADF usage estimates for those airports are correct, the total ACRP estimate for these airports increases from 14,441,693 gallons to 14,834,963 gallons (55% overestimation). [See submittal for Table comparing EPA Estimates of Deicer Usag e to ACRP Estimates] Response: See comment code ADF_USAGE response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 125. ADF_DATA - Airport specific ADF usage data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 12 EPA must also adjust the environmental benefit and pollution loading values. EPA must adjust these incorrect values and accurately determine the amount of ADF used at each airport. Response: See comment code ADF_USAGE response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerp t 125.31 ADF_NORM - Normalized ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208 - 4 According to ADF product information and MSDS data, the concentration of deicing fluid provided by manufacturers may contain significantly less than 100% glycol (some as low as 88 % glycol). How has this been taken into account when EPA evaluated the potential BOD impact of ADF? For example, most estimates of Type I ADF usage assume that a 50/50 mixture of product and water is 50% glycol and that Type IV ADF is 100% glycol. Thus, es timates of, for example, the BOD impact based on this assumption, could result in an overestimate of the applied BOD load if loading was assumed based on pure glycol rather than a value based on direct analysis of the product being used. Response: EPA collected ADF purchase and usage information which included both the amount purchased/used and the "as purchased" concentration of ADF. EPA normalized all data rece i ved to a 100% ADF amount (by excluding water using the “as purchased” concentration) before combining with other data and calculating equivalent BOD associated with the ADF. ADF_NORM - Normalized ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 18 The normalized ADF can be hard to determine based on manufacturer's information on amount of water and other additives in products received, If staying with this definition, should require all manufacturers to disclose the amount of glycol, additives and w ater in products that they sell to within 1/4 % by volume for each. Response: In the final regulatory language EPA has retained the proposed definition of "Normalized aircraft deicing fluid" to mean ADF less any water added by the manufacturer or custom er before ADF application. EPA believes that sufficient information is available from either the product's manufacturer, the product's specification sheet, or its MSDS to determine the percent water of the purchased product, as ADF concentrations is clearl y identified to the purchasing entity. Airlines and FBOs that use an ADF product should also have records of any dilution performed on the product prior to its use as that is necessary information to calculate the holdover times of a deiced aircraft. AD F_NORM - Normalized ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 1 Use of the Term "Normalized ADF": Page 44679, Section IV. (B) makes reference to the term "normalized ADF". It defines normalized ADF as the ADF less any water added by the manufacturer or customer before ADF application. Although this may seem synonymous with "on an active ingredient" basis' there may be some confusion using the term normalized. Most marketers of ADF can provide the same product in various concentrations, per user requir ements. As such, a gallon of "ready - to - apply" Type I may be delivered as a 40%, 48%, 55%, 62% glycol content, and so on. (No additional water is added prior to application.) Was this variability in active ingredient concentration considered when assessing (or estimating) the volume of Ethylene or Propylene Glycol being applied per year?32 Response: Normalizing the ADF concentration of a product will account for both water added by the manufactu r er in a "ready to apply" or "as purchased" product as well as a ny water added by the customer prior to ADF application. Thus, 100 gallons of an ADF product that contains 50 percent water normalizes to 50 gallons of 100 percent ADF. See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208, Comment Excerpt 4. ADF_NORM - No rmalized ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 - 9 The normalized aircraft deicing fluid definition should be modified to represent either pure ADF product (without dilution) or it should be defined as the total propylene glycol or ethylene glycol portion of the ADF. The glycols have been identified as the primary pollutant of concern originating from ADF; therefore it would be more appropriate and less prone to miscalculation than the proposed removal of water. Pure ADF product (both deicers and an ti - icers) contain water. In addition to the glycol they also contain a proprietary add - pack which is not necessarily detailed on the MSDS in such a way as to indicate the exact remaining fraction of water within the pure product. Conversely, glycol concent rations are typically listed on the MSDS directly or are available from the manufacturer if the MSDS does not provide exact concentration. The EPA should utilize a normalized ADF definition that focuses on the volume of propylene glycol or ethylene glycol. This datum is easily translatable from one site to another and is less prone to confusion than a pure product - less - water definition. In addition, propylene glycol and ethylene glycol analysis can be performed on collected water to determine concentration/mass, whereas there is no analytical method to test for ADF. Response: EPA has not defined "normalized ADF" based specifically on propylene glycol or ethylene glycol because as new products are developed the ADF component may change. In addition, the no rmalized ADF does equal the pure ADF product without dilution. See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 18. ADF_NORM - Normalized ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 144 EPA utilizes the term “Normalized ADF” to mean “ADF less any water added by the manufacturer or customer before ADF application.” This term is inconsistent with the industry norm of “neat ADF” which refers to as - purchased ADF concentrate, which may contain up to 11% water. Fluid manufacturer’s Ma terial Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) frequently provide a range of water and other constituents within their deicing and anti - icing products. This could lead to variability in determining applicability of regulatory requirements and demonstrating compliance w ith the Proposed Rule. EPA must provide a better definition for normalized ADF. Response: EPA is not utilizing the term "neat ADF" or "as - purchased ADF concentrate" for the final rule specifically because these terms may refer to ADF that includes a wate r component. See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 18.33 ADF_NORM - Normalized ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1 - 2 According to the Proposed Rule, normalized ADF is defined as “ADF less any water added by the manufacturer or customer before ADF application.” It is CAK’s understanding that this definition refers to the glycol content plus additive content as that which is considered normalized ADF. It is not clear if all ADF deicer Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) define glycol, water, and additive content in the same way, potentially leading to some inconsistency. Also, some ADF suppliers keep components of mixture co mpositions confidential as trade secret. Therefore, determining the normalized ADF for each type of deicer and anti - icer applied at CAK may not be possible. If this is the case, it is unclear how we would be able to demonstrate compliance with the Proposed Rule collection standard. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 18. Additionally, an airline is required to know the amount of water in the applied ADF in order to calculate the holdover times. Given that the amount of additives in deicing fluid is such a small amount (typically on the order of 2%) of the remaining ADF formulation, they are neglig i ble in the estimation of available ADF (and likewise for the volume collected). ADF_NORM - Normalized ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 2 As part of the Airport Deice Plan, SLCDA requires the airlines and FBOs to submit monthly deicing/anti icing fluid use reports. These reports document the amount in gallons of pure glycol, prior to mixing, used by each airline and FBO. Under the Proposed Rule, SLC will be dependent upon the airlines and FBOs to accurately report the amount of "normalized" ADF, meaning ADF less water added by the manufacturer, applied to their aircraft. However, EPA's proposal do es not create adequate accountability. The individual airlines add water to the normalized glycol at various ratios to meet current weather conditions as well as corporate safety guidelines. Thus, to improve the ADF reporting accuracy, SLC recommends that EPA require the FBOs and airlines to be responsible for reporting accurate "normalized" ADF usage data on a certified EPA form. Response: The final regulations do not require the calculation of normalized ADF. Only new airports are requi r ed to collect s pent ADF, and those airports will have multiple options available for demonstrating compliance that do not require documenting the volumes of ADF applied or captured. Those airports who elect to calculate the volumes of available ADF collected, will need to work with their tenants, as SLCDA has, to collect data on the normalized ADF use at the airport. See EPA's comment code ADF_RPTING response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1, Comment Excerpt 43. Additionally, as an airlines requires the amount of wa ter in applied ADF to calculate holdover times, an airline must have accurate data already in order for the airline to determine how long an aircraft has until takeoff no longer becomes safe. Also, see (ADF_NORM) Comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1 Comment excerpt #2). ADF_NORM - Normalized ADF Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1245 - 9 §449.2 "Normalized aircraft deicing fluid" requires clearer definition . The normalized aircraft deicing fluid definition should be modified to represent either pure ADF prod uct (without dilution) or it should be34 defined as the total propylene glycol or ethylene glycol portion of the ADF. The glycols have been identified as the primary pollutant of concern originating from ADF; therefore it would be more appropriate and less p rone to miscalculation than the proposed removal of water. Pure ADF product (both deicers and anti - icers) contain water. In. addition to the glycol they also contain a proprietary add - pack which is not necessarily detailed on the MSDS in such a way as to i ndicate the exact remaining fraction of water within the pure product. Conversely, glycol concentrations are typica ll y listed on the MSD S directly or are available from the manufacturer if the MSDS does not provide exact concentration. The EPA should utili ze a normalized ADF definition that focuses on the volume of propylene glycol or ethylene glycol. This datum is easily translatable from one site to another and is less prone to confusion than a pure product - less - water definition. In addition, propylene gl ycol and ethylene glycol ana l ys i s can be performed on collected water to determine concentration/mass, whereas there is no analytical method to test for ADF. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, Comment Excerpt 9. ADF_PURCHA SE - ADF Purchase vs. Usage Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1169 - 3 P ermit limits should apply to ADF purchases or disbursement, corrected for any recovered pollutants. This simple accounting, usually resisted by airports and the aviation, would allow for audits and better ensure the limits intended in NPDES regulation. Response: See ADF Purchase - Group Response (below). ADF_PURCHASE - ADF Purchase vs. Usage Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 21 Applied verses Purchased: Page 44696, Section VII, (J) (2) states that EPA used ADF purchase data. This may not be completely accurate for a seasonal application, since not all ADF purchased is applied in the same season. Whether retained until the next season (end of season purchases), recycled due to shelf life issues, moved to other stations/airports (by airlines or F.B.O.) after purchased, or various other reasons, the material purchased for an airport during one season does not necessarily get applied by the same airport in the same season. Examp le, recently, due to a change in the ADF market, EQRR received and recycled several hundred thousand gallons (500k - gallons +plus) of ADF, from over fifty US airports. All of this material was received and recycle in late summer, and the fall of the year, from material purchased during the prior deice season. It is safe to assume that EQRR did not receive all ADF purchased from the previous season in storage across the US. Response: See ADF Purchase - Group Response (below). ADF_PURCHASE - ADF Purchase vs. Usage Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 34 § 449.12 (a). Is the reported ADF usage to be based on application data or purchasing data.35 Response: See ADF Purchase - Group Response (below). ADF_PURCHASE - ADF Purchase vs. Usage Comment Info: EPA - H Q - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 56 TDD Page 10 - 2, Section 10.3, as noted previously, it is an incorrect assumption that ADF purchased in one season is not stored on site until it is needed during the next season (spring purchase, fall application.) It is also poss ible when combining applied data with purchased data that ADF bought for one airport is shipped to another (due to weather conditions) and thus this material is "counted" twice: purchased at site A, applied at Site B. Response: See ADF Purchase - Group Response (below). ADF Purchase - Group Response The purpose of today’s regulation is to limit pollutants from airfield deicing from entering waters of the US for both existing and new airports and to limit pollutants from ADF from entering waters of the US for new airports. EPA has set collection requirements and numeric effluent limits to facilitate these goals. EPA, out of concern for safe aircraft operations, is not limiting the amount of ADF that can be purchased or applied to an aircraft. Addition ally, after considering the comments and reviewing the information in the record, EPA is not promulgating a uniform ADF collection or treatment requirement for existing sources. In addition, for new sources, EPA’s economic analysis of whether the final NS PS regulations create a “barrier to entry” was performed at an aggregate facility - wide level. The barrier to entry analysis was not based on the detailed costs of a treatment/collection system or specific costs associated with product substitution. See D CN AD 01260. Additionally, the final rule does not require any airports to report ADF purchase or application (however, a new source permittee can elect to do so as a method of demonstrating compliance with its percent collection requirement; see 40 CFR 449.20 for spec ifics on monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements), nor does it establish uniform aircraft deicing discharge controls for existing airports. Such controls will continue to be established on a BPJ basis Additionally the specifics of any monito ring data will be subject to the purview of the permit authority as they are the entity who the data is reported to. As discussed in the TDD, EPA worked with airport and airline representatives to identify the most representative ADF data possible. At the time of the airport and airline questionnaire development, airport representatives informed EPA that most airports did not have ADF usage data and that airlines would be the best source of this data. Airline representatives told EPA that the airlines t racked purchased amounts of ADF, and that most airlines would not have records of applied ADF. FBOs charge airlines based on the amount of ADF applied and would therefore be expected to have documentation on usage amounts. Based on this industry input, EP A requested ADF purchase data from the airlines and ADF usage data as reported by FBOs in the airline detailed questionnaire. EPA indicated at the time of the questionnaire effort that the ADF purchase data would need to represent usage for EPA's analysis . Where airports provided specific ADF usage information in the airport questionnaires, EPA used that data in the analysis. Thus, ADF usage data will be used in the application of the regulations.36 ADF_RPTING - ADF Usage Reporting Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1207.1 - 8 We agree with other commenters that reporting on a seasonal basis rather than by calendar year is more appropriate. We agree that a five - year record retention period is appropriate, but note that this differs from other Clean Water Act recordkeeping, which only require that records be kept for three years. Response: The recordkeeping requirement is designed to match the length of a stormwater permit (typically a 5 year cycle). ADF_RPTING - ADF Usage Reporting Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 18 It is also a concern that only three years of data was used to develop the average ADF application rates, since the US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) considers the US weather t o be on a 10 - 12 year cycle (temperature and precipitation). Since a limited window of data was used to develop the average ADF application volumes, were the data years used compared to the NOAA records to determine where the US (or regions of the US) fell within this cycle (i.e. was 2002 - 2005 a period of higher precipitation, lower temperature, etc.?) Response: This comment is not applicable to the final rule, as EPA did not use ADF usage data in the costing or load estimates. Additionally, EPA did not co mpare the questionnaire reporting years (2002/2003, 2003/2004, and 2004/2005 deicing seasons) to NOAA weather patterns throughout the country. EPA worked with industry when developing the airport and airline questionnaires, including development of the rep orting years covered by the questionnaires to be certain that the information requested was available to the questionnaire respondents. The airline and airport industry agreed that three year's of data would provide EPA with sufficient information to pe r fo rm the analysis associated with ELG development. In developing industry questionnaires, EPA must strike a balance between gathering information and minimizing the burden associated with responding to the data request. As a result, EPA typically asks for n o more than three years worth of data and usually requests the most recent data. It would have been extremely burdensome for EPA to ask airlines and airports to report information for ten years. Further, most airports and airlines do not retain such inform ation for a ten year period. ADF_RPTING - ADF Usage Reporting Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 43 The EPA has indicated that there have been flaws in reporting deicing usage by airports due to the complexities involved with the various stakeholders and the inability to extract data from these entities. Yet, the assumption in this proposal is that airpo rts would be able to report this information back to the agency with normalized ADF usage and collection. This is a false assumption in many cases. Collection of this data from airlines and fixed - base operators (FBO’s) are on many occasions not possible, n or are they always accurate. According to the EPA’s Technical Document, the survey results found that 67 percent of respondents were airports, which typically have primary responsibility for airfield pavement deicing/antiicing. The remainder of airports re ported that a combination of FBO/private contractor (13 percent), airlines/tenants (9 percent), military (11 percent), and other entities (4 percent) made up this37 group. An accurate collection from all of these stakeholders, as the EPA states, takes a sign ificant amount of coordination, however one that would place the airport in a difficult position when having to rely on this unverifiable information for reporting purposes. Response: The final rule does not require any airport to report the amount of AD F used. An airport may elect to collect that information to demonstrate compliance, but in the event that an airport is unwilling or unable to gather reliable data, it may elect to use other compliance demonstration methods that do not include collecting ADF usage data. ADF_RPTING - ADF Usage Reporting Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 44 Also, the EPA should consider that all stormwater is not collected by a single system so it is nearly impossible to contain and treat all points where glycol co ntamination might occur. There may be general aviation facilities or stand - alone tenant hangars that do not have containment. Some airports also have through - the - fence operators who deice on their own real estate which cannot be tracked. Response: EPA re alizes that the ADF contaminated stormwater generated at an airport may not be collected by a single system and agrees that it is nearly impossible to contain and treat all points where glycol contamination might occur. Furthermore, as EPA recognizes that technology does not currently exist to collect 100% of available ADF, the final rule does not require collection of 100% of available ADF. Additionally, the new source collection requirement (60% of available ADF) is based on the use of centralized deicin g pads, for which EPA has data demonstrating that they will collect at least 60% of available ADF. ADF_RPTING - ADF Usage Reporting Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 12 The airlines are also the purchasers and (either directly or through contract ors) appliers of aircraft deicing fluid. The Port Authority does not control the amount or type of deicing fluid purchased or used. The airlines are requested by the Port Authority to maintain information on deicing fluid use, and the airlines are responsi ble for the accuracy of use information reported to others. The Proposed Rule’s fundamental reliance on deicing fluid use as the threshold for collection requirements means that the key information needed for Rule compliance is outside of the Port Authorit y’s control

– although the Port Authority would be the regulated entity. This approach would put the airport operators in an untenable situation as it relates to implementation and compliance. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1, Comment Excerpt 43. ADF_RPTING - ADF Usage Reporting Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 145 In addition, EPA has proposed that the burden will rest with airports to obtain the glycol concentration minus water informatio n from the manufacturer or air carrier. Airports will have to calculate pure freeze point depressant less water in ADF purchased and used by airlines and other entities deicing aircraft at38 their airport. In order to obtain this information, airports would require that airlines and FBOs regularly (daily, weekly, etc.) calculate and report data on type and quantity of ADF used. Given that airports are not the entity purchasing ADF, they have minimal leverage to obtain this information, let alone certify its a ccuracy. Nevertheless, EPA now proposes to create significant new obligations and legal liabilities on airports associated with activities and information over which they have little or no control. Therefore, EPA must provide a methodology for airline and airport reporting practices to ensure that regulators and the regulated community have a mutual understanding and confidence in the underlying data justifying this ELG proposal. EPA may consider developing a standardized reporting form or mechanism that ai rlines and other ADF users would be required to use and certify as accurate. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1, Comment Excerpt 43. ADF_RPTING - ADF Usage Reporting Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 147 Finally, EPA should clarify that “annual” ADF usage is based on deicing season, not calendar year. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1207.1, Comment Excerpt 8. ADF_RPTING - ADF Usage Reporting Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 12 41.1 - 1 An important component of determining compliance with the percent collection standard set in the Proposed Rule is accurately determining the volume of ADF applied each season. CAK relies on outside entities (FBO’s and airlines) to report deicer us age. Therefore, CAK does not have control over the quality of the information provided to determine compliance. If a reporting mistake is made by one of these outside entities that may cause CAK’s collection percentage to seem less than it actually was, CA K may not be able to identify or explain the reason for reported non compliance with the collection standard. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1, Comment Excerpt 43. With respect to NSPS, an airport is not required to demon strate that a specific amount of deicing fluid was actually collected. The regulation allows for demonstration of compliance through the use of specific technologies described to the permit authority during the permit application process, and then simply c ertifying that all required technologies are in place and in working order, as a means of complying with the permit. ADF_RPTING - ADF Usage Reporting Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 23 SLC recommends that EPA require the FBOs and airlines to be responsible for reporting accurate "normalized" ADF usage data on a certified EPA form. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1, Comment Excerpt 1 (above).39 ADF_RPTING - ADF Usage Reporting Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1245 - 13 ELG should require airlines to submit deicing information to airports when compliance is being measured by §449.20(b)(3) For those permittees that are seeking compliance measurement through §449.20(b)(3), the ELG requires the permittee (which may be the airport authority) to monitor and record the amount of ADF sprayed and collected. In virtually all cases, the airport authority is not the entity responsible for ADF application and relies on the deicing tenants to report this information. The ability for the airport authority to be in compliance with the EL G should not be predicated upon the cooperation and accurate reporting of a separate entity. The EPA should modify the ELG such that it directs the NPDES permit writer to address this dependency within an airport's NPDES permit and require that deicing tenants provide ADF application information to the airport authority and include deicing entities as cop ermittees. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1, Comment Excerpt 1 (above). ADF_RPTING - ADF Usage Reporting Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1247 - 6 The Airport merely provides the means for collection of the spent deicing fluid. The Airport relies on each airline to deice its own aircraft. Since each airline deices its aircraft, KCAB relies on deicing fluid usage reports from the airlines to calculate any mass loading. There is no mechanism for verifying the accurac y of deicing fluid usage provided by airlines for mass balance calculations for collection efficiency. The only way to confirm these values is to audit the airlines purchasing and use records, as well as inventory records. Response: See the comment respon se to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1, Comment Excerpt 1 (above). ADF_USAGE - ADF Usage estimates - general Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1203.1 - 3 FAC recommends that the EPA first establish a reporting protocol to determine what entity, airlines or airports, is responsible for reporting actual usage amounts at airport facilities. This information should have a standard, industry wide reporting mechanism with one data collection entity. Once this reporting mechanism is put in place, there should be a one year reporting timeframe to collect actual usage data to determine applicability of the proposed rule to individual facilities. Response: In the final rule, applicability of the rule is not based on the amounts of ADF usage for either existing or new sources.40 ADF_USAGE - ADF Usage estimates - general Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 57 TDD Section 10.3.2 defines how the EPA estimated the usage of ADF across the US, based on a small dataset, (66 airports, using 3 - years of data). This inform ation was then extrapolated to fit the unknown airports (over 218) by combining the data with the number of Snow or Freezing Precipitation Days from a 30 - year average, not over the same 3 - year period the data was obtained. Additionally, the departure data for each airport used was for the period of 2004 - 2006, yet the ADF data is based on 2002 - 2005? Did the EPA assess the differences in 30 - year averages (SOFP) to the three years used for each airport or the differences in number of departures per airport for the two periods, to determine that they were equivalent? The difference in weather (SOFP) experienced during the 2002 - 2005 period verses the 30 - year average, and departure differences could have greatly impacted the calculation of your "ADF Factor", aidin g in what EQRR has expressed is an over - statement of the volume of ADF applied. Response: In the final rule, applicability of the rule is not based on the amounts of ADF usage for either existing or new sources. However, to respond to this comment, EPA did not conduct alternative ADF usage analyses different than the approach outlined in Section 9.3.2 of the TDD. EPA's approach for estimating ADF usage was developed to 1) use the best data available on ADF usage at the time of data collection, 2) balance the burden to industry of asking for multiple years worth of ADF data for multiple airports as part of the detailed airline questionnaire versus the need to extrapolate the data that were collected, and 3) make the best possible use of long - term snow and freezing precipitation data available through NOAA. At the time of data collection, EPA discussed with industry representatives the best source for collecting ADF usage data and how many years of data were reasonable to request. (See Final Supporting State ment for Airport Deicing Surveys, DCN AD00447.) In addition, to make sure the questionnaire was not overly burdensome, EPA created boundaries on the number of airlines required to respond to the questionnaire and the number of airports for which each airli ne would be required to report. These efforts resulted in the final airline detailed questionnaire sampling frame which was used to determine ADF usage estimates for 66 airports and represented three year average ADF usage values. To extrapolate these data , EPA compared specific airport usage estimates (based on the questionnaire data) to known factors that could be assessed for all airports. Based on EPA's assessment of deicing operations, airport size and weather were determined to be the factors that inf luenced ADF usage the most. To represent these factors, EPA used total airport departures to represent airport size and used snow and freezing precipitation data to represent airport weather. EPA is aware that total airport departures vary over time depend ing on a number of factors and therefore EPA used a three year average of total airport departures to reflect airport size rather than just one year's data. Since ADF usage is predominately a function of weather, and weather may shift dramatically from one year to the next, EPA felt it was important to use a large time period of weather data to determine an average weather factor (the SOFP average). Therefore EPA determined a 30 - year average SOFP value for those airports evaluated by the rule since this was the timeframe for which NOAA data were available. EPA understands that the 30 - year average SOFP value for an airport will differ from any particular year’s SOFP, however, EPA’s approach uses reasonable assumptions to assess factors (such as ADF usage) on a national level. EPA's extrapolation of the estimated ADF usage (based on the questionnaires) to airports without ADF usage data resulted in an r2 factor of 0.76 for U.S. airports (excluding Alaska) and an r2 factor of 0.70 for Alaskan airports. This r2 value shows an acceptable correlation between the data points.41 ADF_USAGE - ADF Usage estimates - general Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 125 EPA Estimates Could Not Be Duplicated To evaluate ADF usage estimates, ATA collected ADF purchase infor mation from member carriers for the 2002/2003 deicing season to the present and independently developed usage estimates for select airports. These data were utilized to evaluate EPA estimates of ADF usage. Sources of this information include the following: • Completed airline deicing questionnaires from ATA members; • Data provided in the EPA database;317 • ADF usage data compiled by select airports; and • Flight/departure information from BTS T - 100 database. For the 2002 to 2005 deicing seasons, ATA utiliz ed data from member carriers to estimate usage at both Washington Dulles (IAD) and Boston Logan (BOS) airports. For the 2006 to the 2009 deicing seasons, ATA utilized ADF usage data318 reported by member carriers at select airports to determine the volume of ADF usage for those years.[FOOTNOTE:318 For some carriers, only purchase information was available. In these cases, purchase records were used.] The conclusions of this analysis are that the Estimated PG/EG gallons per Year based on the Airline Question naire Responses could not be duplicated and the EPA estimates are not representative of recent ADF usage for a majority of the top 20 ADF usage airports. 1. Evaluation of 2002 to 2005 Season Estimates ATA utilized data gathered from member carriers and est imated total airport PG/EG loads for IAD and BOS airports. These airports were selected because ATA carriers conduct the majority of the operations at those airports.319 [FOOTNOTE:319 It must be carefully noted that ATA’s estimates are just that

– estimate s – only, based on the ADF purchase information reported to EPA. ATA estimates are expressly not intended as definitive statements of usage levels at particular airports, but only as benchmarks against which to compare EPA estimates derived using the same type of data for the purpose of determining the validity/accuracy of EPA’s reported estimates.] The estimated total airport PG/EG volume was calculated for each airport as the quotient of the reported PG/EG volume and the percent jet operations by the surv eyed carriers during the deicing season. The results of this analysis for both airports are provided below: [See Table: Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD), pg. 139] [See Table: Boston Logan (BOS), pg. 139] Boston Logan (BOS) For IAD, average PG/ EG volume for the total airport is estimated as 409,493 gallons. Using the same data, EPA’s estimated PG/EG gallons per year for IAD was 1,076,083 gallons - 2.5 times greater than the value calculated above. For BOS, average PG/EG volume for the total airp ort is estimated as 561,626 gallons. Using the same data, EPA’s estimated PG/EG gallons per year for BOS was 995,249 gallons - nearly 2 times greater than the value calculated above. Based on these two airports, it appears that EPA’s estimates of ADF usage overestimate airport usage by a factor of between 2 and 2.5. Response: In the final rule, applicability of the rule is not based on the amounts of ADF usage for either existing or new sources. However, to respond to this comment, EPA collected ADF usage data for the 2002/2003, 2003/2004, and 2004/2005 deicing seasons from airline entities. At the time of the airport/airline questionnaire development, airline and airport representatives informed EPA that since the airlines either conduct their own deicin g or contract with another airline or Fixed - Base Operator (FBO) for deicing services, they would have the most accurate data on usage and/or purchase of ADF for assessing an overall airport usage amount. Therefore, EPA collected ADF usage information thro ugh the certified responses to the airline detailed questionnaire, which provided data on ADF type, its composition (in terms of dilution), and amounts either purchased by the airline or reported by an FBO. These data were then certified as part of that q uestionnaire response. The airline respondents claimed a significant portion of those data provided as Confidential Business Information (CBI). Because of the CBI claims, EPA could not provide in the public record the underlying data used to estimate air port ADF usage. Instead, EPA provided information on the methodology used to develop an airport's total ADF usage estimate from the individual airline responses. While EPA understands that commenters believe the airport usage estimates developed using the airline detailed questionnaire data are overestimating ADF usage, EPA42 believes that its ADF usage estimates are better because they are based on based on the certified airline and FBO data, which are the entities that conduct the deicing, as compared to t he airport survey (which as stated by industry reps are not the entities who would have this info) conducted by ATA. and referenced in EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 1226.1. After receipt of ATA comments and their analysis of airport ADF usage from their survey, EPA comp ared the estimated airport usage amount from the ATA survey to the actual amounts reported by the airlines operating at an airport during the airline detailed questionnaire (before any scale - up to address non - reported operations). In this comparison, EPA found in many cases that the amounts reported and certified to by the airlines during the questionnaire effort were higher than the ATA survey estimates. In these cases, the certified airline data is different from the ATA survey estimates prior to the ap plication of EPA's estimation methodology. Since the impact to EPA's effluent guideline analysis of overestimating an airport's ADF usage would be to overestimate costs for that model airport, EPA believes that this approach is conservative in nature. Add itionally, airfield deicing usage estimates were based directly on values provided by the airports, as they were the entity that purchased and used the chemicals. EPA simply scaled up the airfield deicer usage values by the statistical weighting factors a ssociated with each model facility. ADF_USAGE - ADF Usage estimates - general Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 126 Determination of Representativeness of EPA Usage Estimates To determine if the data EPA utilized from air carrier surveys conduc ted in 2007 is representative of current operations, ATA estimated PG/EG usage for the deicing seasons 2005/6, 2006/7, 2007/8 and 2008/9. Data on ADF usage or purchased volumes was provided by ATA carriers for the airports identified as the top 20 usage ai rports by EPA. These data indicate the following: • At these airports, ATA carriers typically represent the majority (> 50%) of jet operations. There were only two airports (PIT and STL) for which data from ATA carriers represented less than 50% of jet ope rations. Thus, for a majority of the airports, the data was considered sufficient to predict total airport ADF application. • The relative percent difference between the EPA usage estimates and the average usage for these top 20 airports based on the ATA a nalysis was calculated. The ATA and EPA estimates were within +/ - 15% of each other for only five of the 20 airports (DTW, EWR, IND, MSP and PIT). EPA estimates appear to be acceptable for these airports. For the other 15 airports examined, EPA and ATA esti mates diverge by more +/ - 15% - this divergence ranges from 15.5% to 130%. This divergence is 50% or more at half of the airports. In short, there are substantial differences between EPA’s 2002 to 2005 and ATA’s current estimate of ADF usage. • For 13 airpor ts (a large majority of the top 20 airports), EPA ADF usage values are higher than the current usage values calculated based on ATA carrier usage or purchase information. • EPA’s estimates are less than ATA estimates only two airports, ANC and ORD. In the case of ANC, the estimates diverge substantially. Based on the analysis of usage estimates at BOS and IAD and on comparisons of usage estimates developed by EPA with estimates of usage for recent years for the top 20 usage airports, EPA’s usage estimates a re demonstrably flawed and not representative of current ADF usage and potential loadings to the environment. Response: See the EPA response to Comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 125. ADF_USAGE - ADF Usage estimates - general Comment Inf o: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 22 In several areas of the Technical Document, in particular in Table 10 - 1 of the TDD, the EPA provides a three - year average for its calculations. This short time - span does not provide an accurate estimate. This43 data is hea vily dependent on the climate, which needs to take into consideration a larger time span than three years. Also, traffic figures of the airline industry need to encompass many more data points to be able to determine an average. These figures do not necess arily correlate, but both should be taken into consideration when addressing calculations of averages to be extrapolated and used for further formulaic insertion. Response: See the EPA response to Comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 57. A DF_USAGE - ADF Usage estimates - general Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 3 Deicing fluid use fluctuates unpredictably over time. Aircraft deicing fluid use depends to a great extent on the weather. As a result, deicing fluid use can vary substantially from year to year, and can vary considerably over long periods of time. Althoug h an “average” deicing fluid use may be estimated for an airport based on long - term data, that average has limited usefulness. The deicing fluid use for a particular season cannot be predicted with certainty; it could be half the use of the prior year, or twice the use. Our later comments demonstrate that, with respect to LGA in particular, the variation in fluid use leads to uncertainty regarding the applicable collection threshold (20 or 60 percent) and the resulting compliance requirements (GRVs or centr alized deicing pads). This uncertainty has major capital and operating cost implications; EPA has not considered this crucial detail in the Proposed Rule. Deicing fluid use is concentrated during a few days each year. Based on a review of deicing fluid use data at JFK (discussed in our later comments), it is clear that most of the use of deicing fluid at our airports is limited to just a few days each season. On other days of the deicing season, fluid use is much lower, and outside the season, deicing fluid is used very rarely. EPA has proposed the use of multiple areas of our airfields for facilities that would not be used most of the time. Given the extremely limited availability of land at the Port Authority airports, the reservation of large land areas f or deicing - related compliance would have opportunity cost impacts and would severely limit our ability to operate our airfields efficiently. Airports are not controlled environments. Weather (which can vary widely) is the primary factor that generates the need to deice an aircraft to ensure safe operation. In addition, airport operations as a whole are subject to the weather. The orientation of the runways at the Port Authority airports is based on the predominant wind direction(s), and wind conditions affe ct runway use. Weather in other parts of the country and the world affects the operation of the airports in New York. As noted in our later comments, there are a number of ways in which the EPA has failed in the Proposed Rule to account for the crucial rol e of weather in airport operations. Deicing use differs among airports. As a result of those differences and other differences in airport operations, deicing fluid use differs among airports. Our concern is that in a number of places in the TDD and support ing documentation, the EPA uses information from several “model” airports that have different characteristics to develop factors used to determine compliance needs, feasibility, and cost for our airports. Deicing fluid use in Denver, Minneapolis, Akron, an d other locations is different from fluid use at the Port Authority airports, and EPA’s use of data from those places is not necessarily valid; simple correlations cannot and should not be made to support a regulatory process. Again, EPA historically was j ustified in comparing, for example, steel mills across the country that used the same processes, but they are not affected by weather, public safety, or operations by tenants like airports. Response: In the final rule, applicability of the rule is not ba sed on the amounts of ADF usage for either existing or new sources. However, to respond to this comment, EPA agrees that ADF usage is significantly affected by the weather and will fluctuate from year to year at any given airport. Nevertheless, EPA has de veloped a reasonable technical approach for assessing ADF usage in the development of NSPS for the airport44 deicing category. See the EPA response to Comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, excerpt 57. ADF_USAGE - ADF Usage estimates - general Comment Info: EP A - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 15 If an airport experiences unusually heavy ice or snow precipitation over an extended period of time, airlines would use more deicing fluid than normal. If that volume of deicing fluid were greater than the collection, storage, and treatment capacity designed for that airport, the effluent would not meet the standards of the Proposed Rule and the airport would be in violation of its discharge permit. Nowhere in the Proposed Rule is this scenario addressed. Would the EPA expect t he airlines, the airport, and/or the FAA to limit or even cancel departures under certain conditions so that the airport would not have discharge permit violations? Response: Methods allowed in the final rule to demonstrate compliance with the collection and discharge permit requirements for NSPS are described in Section XI.C of the final rule preamble. The NSPS ADF collection requirement differs from traditional end - of - pipe effluent limitations with regard to a mechanism for demonstrating compliance and is based on demonstrating that the airport is using and maintaining a system that can meet the 60 percent collection requirement on an annual basis (as opposed to a storm by storm basis). Because the amount of ADF available for collection can vary dependi ng on the weather and icing conditions at the time of application, today’s final rule provides three procedures available for selection by the permittee, for demonstrating compliance with the NSPS ADF collection requirement. Additionally, the technology basis for the NSPS effluent limit will require storage to mitigate slug loadings to the system, as is the case with all biological treatment systems. ADF_USAGE - ADF Usage estimates - general Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 18 The TDD (Tables 1 0 - 2 and 10 - 4) presents estimated “normalized” aircraft deicing fluid use, based on the responses to EPA’s airline questionnaires for the 2002 - 2003, 2003 - 2004, and 2004 - 2005 deicing seasons. The data listed by EPA using airline - supplied information for the three major Port Authority airports are: [See table comparing EPA and Port Authority ADF usage data] We have a number of concerns about the ADF information presented. A major concern is that we do not have access to the airline data EPA used in the TDD, so we cannot review the EPA numbers or compare them with data we have collected. The estimates in the TDD are based on the Airport Deicing Operations ADF Usage Database, which shows that all of the numbers reported by the airlines are “confidential business information.” It is inconceivable that the Port Authority would be required to make major capital investments at its airports through this flawed EPA regulatory process based on information that is being withheld from the Authority. An indication of the EP A’s approach to the estimates is provided in a memorandum prepared by the EPA’s consultant, ERG.24 The memorandum notes that the EPA used the amount of chemical purchased as a surrogate for the amount of chemical applied.25 It may be true (as the memo stat es) that “purchase data are documented and tracked more frequently than usage data.” However, the lack of availability of usage data does not make purchase data a valid surrogate. Airlines have widely varying policies and procedures for the purchase of air craft deicing fluid, and some airlines may have substantial amounts of product remaining at the end of a particular deicing season.26 In addition, the memorandum notes that the EPA collected and averaged data for three winter seasons “to capture any variab ility in the severity of the winter weather over the past three years.”27 A brief review of seven years of Port Authority data for LGA indicates that variability can occur over longer periods than three years, and that the variability can be quite large. U sing our data, the average for the three years EPA studied is higher than the average for the45 past five years or the entire seven years’ worth of data. The longer - term data indicate that the use of a three - year average can skew the results so that they are not representative of the wide range of fluid use that can occur over time. The ERG memorandum also indicates that the EPA received deicing fluid purchase information from 58 airlines, but indicates that in some cases, data were not available for every ai rline operating at an airport. In those cases, ERG extrapolated the amount of ADF purchased by the reporting airlines to estimate the total amount of fluid purchased for the entire airport, based on the number of departures for the reporting airlines and t he number of departures for the airport as a whole.28 As the supporting data are not available, we cannot determine whether all airlines serving our airports reported information to the EPA, or whether the EPA extrapolated partial data for our airports to represent all airport operations. The use of extrapolation may seem reasonable, but can result in a substantial overestimate or underestimate of actual fluid use. The reason is that the operations of the airlines that reported to the EPA may not be reflect ive of the operations of the airlines that did not report data. For example, if a reporting airline operates a substantial number of Aircraft Design Group (“ADG”) IV aircraft (such as the Boeing 747), that airline will likely use much more deicing fluid (f or an equivalent number of operations) than a non - reporting airline that operates mostly Group III aircraft or smaller. Conversely, if a reporting airline operates a substantial number of smaller aircraft, that airline likely will use much less deicing flu id than a non - reporting airline that operates mostly large aircraft. In addition, the reporting airlines may have purchased different Type I products, with different concentrations of glycol, than the non - reporting airlines.29 A more basic problem with the EPA’s approach is that it relies on data reported by the airlines. As noted previously, the deicing fluid estimates are used in numerous places throughout the supporting analysis for the Proposed Rule, and thus are a key underlying component to the Propos ed Rule. The structure of the Proposed Rule sets forth the Port Authority’s compliance mandates

– in terms of determining the collection standard, a conclusion that has major financial and operational implications

– relying solely on the data reported by t he airlines. The Port Authority can make its best efforts to collect complete and accurate data from airlines on deicing fluid use, but ultimately, cannot control what the airlines report. [FOOTNOTE: 26 The Port Authority works closely with each individual airline tenant, but cannot command the airlines to conduct all of their operations in the same or similar manners. This variability adds to the complexity of the challenges facing EPA in developing Deicing ELG standards. The airlines may have different or possibly better information from which to conduct similar analyses to the ones presented in this section of our comments. In any event, the Port Authority has talked with Air Transport Association and is confident that their comments also demonstrate frus tration with regard to recreating EPA’s analyses and their belief, like ours, that EPA has overestimated fluid usage to the detriment of the Agency’s entire Proposed Rule analyses and conclusions.] [FOOTNOTE: 29 The problems with this approach are evidence d by the “ADF factor” ERG created (ERG April 17 memorandum, p. 7) “to estimate the relative amount of deicing occurring at each airport based on the airport’s climate and number of departures.” The graph based on the ADF factor equation shows that, as the number of winter - weather days increases, there is less of a correlation among annual departures, winter - weather days, and deicing fluid use. This lack of a strong correlation is reflected in the R2 value - 0.7622 - for ERG’s equation, shown on Figure 1 on p. 7.] Response: See the EPA response to Comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 57 and the EPA response to Comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 125. ADF_USAGE - ADF Usage estimates - general Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 21 The average deicing fluid use at LGA for the past five years was below the EPA threshold for 60 percent collection, but what if the New York region experienced severe winter weather for several years in a row, pushing the average use over the t hreshold? The Port Authority would be required to switch from GRVs46 to centralized deicing pads. A subsequent period of milder weather, or the implementation of best management practices, might bring deicing fluid use back under the threshold, making deicin g pad use (and the associated cost) unnecessary. Fluid use can vary so widely and is so basically related to weather that it is difficult to know what the long - term compliance requirements of the Proposed Rule would be. Very importantly, EPA has not factor ed in implications of climate change and climate change adaptability in this proposed rulemaking, which the Port Authority maintains is a glaring omission. Response: See the EPA response to comment for EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1, Comment Excerpt 3. ADF_ USAGE - ADF Usage estimates - general Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 23 As our data do not cover the same period analyzed by the EPA, we cannot comment specifically on the validity of the EPA results. Even based on the limited data available, however, it is clear that there are large differences between the Port Authority and EPA estimates. Again, we do not have access to the EPA’s airline questionnaire database, so we cannot determine the reasons for the discrepancies. At the least, the EWR data indicate the problems with using a three - year average as the basis for aircraft de icing fluid use estimates. Overall, our concerns are: (1) the Proposed Rule would require the Port Authority and other airport operators to rely on airline reporting of deicing data, (2) the determination of the collection threshold and corresponding compl iance requirements, with major cost and operational implications, is dependent on the airline data, and (3) the three - year average EPA used in its analysis is not adequate to encompass the variability of deicing fluid use over time. The Port Authority main tains that EPA cannot finalize the rule until the supporting documentation is adequately revised to address these issues. [FOOTNOTE: 30 Port Authority of NY & NJ, JFK International Airport, 2008 - 2009 Deicing/Anti - icing Data. The data include airline - specif ic information, and can be provided to EPA for confidential use upon request.] Response: See the EPA response to Comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 125. See also comment code ADF_RPTING EPA comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1, Comment Excerpt 43. ADF_USAGE - ADF Usage estimates - general Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 32 Page 44716, §449.10 (a). How many years of glycol gallon usage will be used to determine how much glycol an airport uses? Glycol usage is wholly d ependent on weather conditions that will change from year to year. Following promulgation of the ELG, a running annual average could be used but how will the determination be made upon promulgation? Response: The final rule does not establish uniform req uirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports. See response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1

– 125.47 ADF_USAGE - ADF Usage estimates - general Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 28 ADF usage can also change unpredictably from year - to - year, and over the 5 - year averaging period suggested in the Proposed Rule. ADF usage is highly dependent on climate and operations. An airport that is close to the 460,000 gallon threshold may move betwe en collection requirement categories regularly, even using a five - year average. The table below shows the great fluctuations in ADF usage at Pittsburgh International Airport, just in the few years since EPA gathered data for this Proposed Rule. In light of the radical declines in commercial air traffic seen in the past few years, as well as improvements in the efficiency of ADF application, airports are also faced with the possibility of having a 5 - year average ADF usage that exceeds 460,000 gallons per yea r while traffic and ADF usage are clearly on a downward trend below this threshold. The current basis and structure of the scope of the rule do not speak to these dynamic factors in the industry. Response: See the EPA response to comment for EPA - HQ - OW - 20 04 - 0038 - 1232.1, Comment Excerpt 3. ADF_USAGE_HIGH - EPA’s ADF usage estimates are high Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1199 - 10 The ADF usage estimates reported by EPA for Dulles Airport are not consistent with the annual reports submitted by MWAA to the Virginia DEQ. Table 10 - 2 of the Technical Development Document identifies ADF estimates for Dulles Airport based on airline detailed questionnaire responses for the 2002/2003 through 2004/2005 deicing seasons. Fairfax Water has reviewed the 2007 - 2008 annual VPDES report submitted by MWAA to the Virginia DEQ and found a significant difference in the amount of ADF reported applied and that estimated by EPA in Table 10 - 2. It appears that the amount of propylene glycol/ethylene glycol estimated in Table 10 - 2 of the Technical Development Document reports the total 3 - year glycol usage by Dulles Airport rather than normalized gallons per year (GPY) metric from which the proposed regulation determines ADF recovery requirements. This potential discrepancy impact s Dulles Airport's ADF use categorization as regulated by the proposed regulation. A copy of the 2007 - 2008 annual report identifying glycol usage from the airport in the years 1998/1999 through 2007/2008 is attached for your reference. Response: The estim ated ADF usage in Table 10 - 2 of the proposed rule TDD for Dulles airport was not a total 3 - year usage amount (as is indicated was reported in the VPDES report); it represents EPA's estimate of normalized ADF usage per year for Dulles airport based on the a irline questionnaire responses. EPA used airline responses for these calculations, as the Agency was informed by the industry that the airlines were typically the most accurate source of this data. ADF_USAGE_HIGH - EPA’s ADF usage estimates are high Comm ent Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 3 Over - estimation of Annual Applied ADF Volumes: Page 44683, Section V, (C), (3) (a) estimates that the annual usage of ADF is approximately 25 - Million gallons (assumed referencing normalized ADF). This48 volume seems to be much higher than EQRR's perception of the market. As a recycler of chemical waste for resale as a commodity, EQRR must analyze and understand the market(s) and the demand for the material. Parts of our market records include commodity reports and rev iews for Ethylene and Propylene Glycols. These records go back as far as 1992. In that year, PG based functional fluids (anti - freeze, deicing fluids, and heat transfer fluids) sold in the US totaled 11,259,000 - gallons. A similar (investment) report from 20 05 reported the US Functional Fluid market totaling 21.7M - gallons. (This total Functional fluid volume is less than the 25M - gallons ADF - only (a subset of this volume) estimate from the same period). In 2002, EQRR provided information to an industry consult ant working on an estimate of US ADF applied. In return for our data, we were informed that the overall market (ADF applied) was somewhere near 17M - gallons (active ingredient). Even more recently, a study was completed by the Transportation Research Board (of the national academies, referred to as the TRB), under the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) 11 - 02, Task 10: "Estimate of National Use of Aircraft and Airfield Deicing Materials". This project estimated that the average annual glycol usage ( active ingredient) was 14M to 16M - gallons per year. As such, this possible over - estimate of applied volumes (by approx. 60%) will have an impact on the environmental impact analysis presented later in the publication (Page 44692). Also an item of note, thi s section states that 85% of the ADF is estimated to be applied at 110 of the 320 airports estimated to use ADF. The ARCP 11 - 02, Task 10 project represents that the 85% of applied ADF occurs at - 50 airports. (As shown in Figure 1, below.) See submittal for [Figure 1: Summary of results from ACRP 11 - 02 Task 10 - 3] Response: EPA based its ADF usage estimates on the best available data as indicated by the industry. See comment code ADF_USAGE, EPA response to Comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 11240.1, Comment Excer pt 80. ADF_USAGE_HIGH - EPA’s ADF usage estimates are high Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 23 There appeared to be an overestimation on the part of the EPA regarding ADF usage. In particular, Potassium Acetate figures were overestimated by the EPA by nearly 20 percent in comparison to what our airport members reported. Propylene Glycol - Based Fluids were overestimated as well. Overestimating chemical usage would then inflate the cost and overstate the benefit of this proposal. Response: See co mment code ADF_USAGE, EPA response to Comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 125. ADF_USAGE_HIGH - EPA’s ADF usage estimates are high Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 20 However, the numbers presented in the TDD

– for example, 485,1 57 gallons of total normalized ADF for the three - season period studied

– indicate that LGA would be subject to a 60 percent collection standard. This conclusion carries throughout the TDD and supporting analysis. The ERG analysis of land availability for c entralized pads, the cost estimates and economic analysis, and the language in the NPRM all are based on the conclusion that LGA would be subject to the higher collection threshold. The Port Authority and EPA data lead to different conclusions regarding th e collection standard, highlighting the clearly flawed approach used by the EPA. The BAT for complying with a 20 percent collection standard is the use of GRVs, an operational procedure with relatively lower (though not insubstantial) costs. The BAT (and o nly technology we can identify) for complying with a 60 percent collection standard is to49 build and operate centralized deicing pads, a physical change to the airport that involves a major capital expense. The consequences of having incomplete or inaccurat e data may be (1) in the case of overestimation, the provision of unneeded facilities at great expense or (2) in the case of underestimation, noncompliance. Response: See comment code ADF_USAGE, EPA response to Comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 125. EPA collected ADF usage data in the manner suggested to be most accurate by the a irport and a irline industry. As explained in the preamble, the final rule does not establish uniform controls for aircraft deicing discharges. These will cont inue to be established on a BPJ, site - specific basis. ADF_USAGE_HIGH - EPA’s ADF usage estimates are high Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 80 EPA Has Overestimated ADF Usage. EPA’s estimates of ADF used at airports across the U.S. are based on a statistical survey of airlines in which EPA obtained the amount of ADF purchased by airlines at various airports. EPA developed a methodology to extrapo late the airline data to determine total ADF used at individual airports, which was then scaled up for a national estimate. ACI - NA is prohibited from identifying specific errors in EPA’s methodology or statistical calculations.61 [Footnote 61: Because the airline respondents indicated ADF purchase data is confidential business information, EPA was not able to provide this data in the rulemaking’s public record. EPA was also not able to provide the methodology used to develop the airport and national ADF usa ge estimates because of the ability to back extrapolate and determine confidential ADF purchase data.] Nevertheless, ACI - NA has access to reliable industry ADF usage data, which we assert is more accurate and reveals the extent of EPA’s overestimation. EPA ’s error results in miscalculations regarding: overestimating pollutant loads; overestimating pollutant load reductions achievable by the regulation; and overestimating the environmental benefits associated with the proposed standards. The Transportation R esearch Board’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) initiated a project in 2007 to calculate quantities of ADF and airfield deicing materials used at major airports across the country.62 [Footnote 62: ACRP 11 - 02 (Task 10)

— Estimate of National Use of Aircraft - and Airfield - Deicing Materials (2008).] The ACRP project team collected ADF usage data from 72 airports for the 2002 - 2005 deicing seasons

– the same years of data EPA relied on in developing the Proposed Rule. The project research team also d eveloped statistical estimates for another 112 airports. ACRP concluded that, on average, 15,200,000 gallons of ADF were used nationally during each year during the 2002 - 2005 deicing seasons. EPA’s national estimate of 25,000,000 gallons per year is over 1 0,000,000 gallons higher than the ACRP’s data. Appendix C contains a chart comparing EPA estimates of ADF usage at airports subject to the Proposed Rule compared with data available through the ACRP project. As a result of EPA’s overestimation, there are s everal significant impacts on EPA’s proposed rule apart from national pollutant loadings and benefits. Using ACRP data, the proposed 60 percent ADF collection standard would apply to less than the 14 EPA predicts. For instance, EPA estimates annual ADF usa ge at Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) to be 1,076,083 gallons. Through the ACRP data, which was confirmed with IAD, actual usage is 276,652 gallons

– a difference of 289 percent. In estimating the load reduction expected for this airport due to the regulation, EPA determined that IAD currently collects 40 percent of applied ADF, meaning the airport would have to collect an additional 20 percent in order to meet a 60 percent standard. EPA estimated the additional collection requirements would e quate to a reduction of 1,966,949 pounds in COD discharges. In fact, as proposed, the Rule would result in no environmental benefit from IAD because it would only be subject to 20 percent collection standard, which it currently exceeds. Cleveland - Hopkins I nternational Airport is in the same situation, with an actual estimated average ADF usage over the deicing seasons of 2002 - 2005 of 414,247 gallons, dropping it from the 60 to 20 percent collection standard, and eliminating 1,236,37050 pounds of predicted COD benefit.63 These two airports alone account for eight percent of the COD discharge reduction expected from the Proposed Rule. EPA could argue that there are other airports for which they underestimate ADF usage. In doing so, it is gambling that by being w rong consistently, the Agency may luck out and reach a correct conclusion. Such an argument would be unacceptable to the airport industry. Either EPA should correctly analyze its proposed rulemaking and ensure that its calculations hold up to public scruti ny or it should redo much of its Proposed Rule. If we assume that EPA’s ADF estimates are incorrect, then its options analysis also is incorrect, as well as many of its calculations that led it to using the 460,000 gallon threshold criterion and regulatory conclusions. ADF usage data from 2002 - 2005 may also not be reflective of more current usage, particularly because overall operations have declined as a result of the economic downturn. For example, Pittsburgh International Airport used an average of 593,6 29 gallons of ADF during the deicing seasons 2002 - 2005. The airport also had an average of 333,099 annual operations during calendar years 2003 - 2005. In comparison, the airport used an average of 309,541 gallons of ADF during deicing seasons 2007 - 2009, cal endar years during which annual operations averaged 176,287. Additionally, most of the reductions in estimated ADF usage that would result from EPA using more accurate (ACRP) data would cause load reductions to be reduced proportionally more than they woul d cause costs to be reduced. This is because load reductions achieved by the proposed regulation are generally proportional to expected baseline ADF usage, but costs associated with the Proposed Rule will decline less proportionally based on reduced estima ted ADF usage. Much of the compliance cost associated with EPA’s proposed standard is determined for an airport by the factual determination regarding whether it is over the proposed departures threshold. Hence, the cost for any given airport will decline very little, or at least much less proportionally than the reductions in ADF usage resulting from EPA going back and correcting its data. The bottom line is that the Proposed Rule is built on a very shaky factual basis and a significant change in ADF usage estimates could completely alter EPA’s regulatory conclusions. Because fluid base type (EG vs. PG, not Type I vs. Type IV) impacts estimated COD removal

– because EG and PG have different COD “weights”

– EPA’s mischaracterization with regard to fluid base type is significant. In fact, EPA’s model mischaracterizes the base types of fluids used at many airports. For example, EPA data incorrectly indicates that 41,726 gallons of ethylene glycol is used annually at Denver International Airport (DEN). In fact, no ethylene glycol is used at DEN. In Appendix X, ACI - NA has provided the ACRP findings regarding quantities and types of ADF used at major airports across the country. We encourage EPA to substitute that data for its own estimates, or to initiate an alter native data collection exercise to base any future deicing ELG on appropriate, accurate, and current data. Response: See comment code ADF_USAGE, EPA response to Comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 125. In addition, EPA's model uses the re ported, certified data on ADF types and usage from the airline detailed questionnaire to statistically extrapolate usage and loadings to a national level. We have no reason to believe that the certified data supplied by the airlines is mischaracterized an d inaccurate. With respect to the commenter's example regarding ethylene glycol use at Denver International Airport, EPA notes that in a certified non - CBI airline questionnaire submittal an airline reported Type I Ethylene Glycol usage at the Denver Inter national airport for all three years covered by the airline questionnaire. See also response to comment 1214.1 - 3 (above). ADF_USAGE_HIGH - EPA’s ADF usage estimates are high Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 11 In Table 10 - 2 of the EPA TDD, the extrapolated ADF usage value for SLC was 570,540 gallons/year. Yet, the actual value based on monthly ADF usage reports for SLC was 352,476 gallons/year. This51 equates to an overestimated ADF usage value, by EPA of over 60%. Again, the calculated environme ntal benefit and the pollutant loading associated with the proposed rule were overestimated for SLC. As a result, the environmental benefit and the pollutant loading calculated by the EPA were also overestimated for SLC and possibly other airports. Respon se: See response to comment 1240.1 - 80 (above). AIRFIELD_LOAD - Airfield deicing loads Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1169 - 1 An NPDES permit for an airport covers storm water effluent only, so testing effluent is not sufficient for measuring compliance with permit limits. First, concentrations of glycols and other chemicals in storm water effluent understate the volume of pollut ants during storm events, because runoff volume and discharge rates are high, diluting the sample. An airport also may have a diversion/recovery system that indefinitely stores contaminated storm water, or "recovers" glycols, for separate disposal. Polluta nts also escape, unmeasured and unregulated, from airports as storm water system overflows, as wind - borne or aircraft - borne aerosols, and by other means (in - flow to sanitary sewers, into ground water by seepage or unfortuitous entries such as wells, etc.) Second, unknown volumes of residues from deicing remain in storm water ponds, piping, ditches, and elsewhere on the airport such that output concentrations are distributed over time, followed by various failures in the containment system that release unkn own or undetected pollutant volumes into the environment: a systematic misapplication of the NPDES permit process Response: The effluent limitation requirements in this rule are not only for effluents during storm events. The final rule requires existing airports to substitute airfield deicers containing urea with alternative, non - urea based chemicals. Additionally, new airports, of a certain size and located in certain geographic locations, will also be required to collect a portion of spent air craft deicing materials and monitor their direct discharge effluent to meet daily maximum and weekly average COD effluent limitations. The sampling frequency, analytical method and reporting procedures are to be determined by the permit authority. AIRFIEL D_LOAD - Airfield deicing loads Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1169 - 2 The objectionable components of aircraft deicing fluids (ADFs) vary from time to time and from manufacturer to manufacturer. ADF chemicals may form different glycol compounds or in clude pollutants, in addition to glycols, that are not detected or not measured accurately in storm water effluent and not included in permit restrictions. Response: See the response to ADF_Additives Comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1207.1 Excerpt 6. AIRFIELD _LOAD - Airfield deicing loads Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 128 Airfield Deicing Loads EPA assumes that 100% of the urea applied is discharged to the environment. As a result, the Agency credits the Proposed Rule with the elimination of 100% of the COD associated with52 urea as applied. This represents an overestimation of the Proposed Rule’s environmental benefits because some fraction of applied urea is never discharged to surface waters but decomposes in other media not under the auspices of the CWA. EPA must account for this “fugitive” ammonia and deduct it from the total amount of urea applied before calculating the pollution elimination benefits attributable to the Proposed Rule’s product substitution standard. Response: See response to ADF_Avail EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 excerpt 83. AIRFIELD_LOAD - Airfield deicing loads Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 55 A review of the Proposed Rule TDD and the docket documents reveals that there is an inconsistency in the COD loading ca lculations. EPA used two different methods to calculate COD loading. For the first method, (“method 1”) it calculated specific COD loadings for each deicing chemical based on the molecular formula of the chemical and the stoichiometric equation of the brea kdown of the chemical into carbon dioxide and water.123 The second method (“method 2”) used a constant factor of 14.38 lb COD/gal ADF for all deicing chemicals, which it identified as ADF_COD.124 There is no explanation in the TDD as how the 14.38 constant was determined. In addition, even with the ADF_COD factor, there are two different values found. The TDD and the AFB Capital Cost memorandum list 14.38 but the actual value used in the calculations, as depicted in the Airport Costing Database, is 14.28. A lthough the difference between the two values may be insignificant, this discrepancy highlights the Port Authority’s concerns over the quality of the analysis and the level of quality assurance to which the whole analysis was subjected. As documented in th e TDD and the Airport Deicing Loading Database Dictionary, the first method is utilized to calculate the baseline COD loadings at each airport and the potential amounts of pollution removed at ADF collection thresholds of 20 percent, 40 percent, and 60 per cent. The ADF_COD factor is consistently used throughout the Airport Deicing Costing Database to determine the capital and O&M costs for an AFBR treatment system with each ADF collection method. A comparison of the two calculation methodologies reveals tha t the ADF_COD factor (method 2) underestimates the COD loadings calculation by 1.84 percent as compared to method 1. The capital and O&M cost estimates for AFBR are also off by the same difference (1.84 percent) because the ADF_COD factor is directly used in calculating these values. Again, the percentage difference may seem insignificant, but it results in an underestimate of the AFBR treatment costs and highlights the deficiencies in the QA/QC of the analyses and the Proposed Rule. The TDD clearly states that EPA considered two methods to calculate the COD loadings but opted for the approach that “involved using standard chemical information and stoichiometric equations to estimate COD and BOD5 for each chemical.”125 It is further stated in the TDD that th e “advantage of this methodology over using empirical data is that it can be used for all deicing chemicals.... this methodology allows the calculations and assumptions used to be clearly presented.”126 Based on these statements, EPA should use method 1 (the equation at TDD 10 - 1) to calculate COD loadings to bring consistency to the analysis, and consequently revise the Airport Deicing Costing Database to avoid any underestimation of capital and O&M costs for the AFBR treatment system. Response: EPA estimat ed pollutant loads for the industry using the airports’ reported deicing chemical purchase data, the molecular formula of the chemicals, and the stoichiometric equation of the breakdown of the chemicals into carbon dioxide and water. This analysis is desc ribed in TDD Section 10. The industry load calculation estimated the total amount of COD at each airport, but it did not estimate the COD of typical ADF. EPA developed the ADF_COD factor to represent the typical COD of ADF for53 use in the costing calcula tions. The 14.28 pounds of COD per gallon ADF was estimated based on the estimated amounts of COD for propylene or ethylene glycol and additives present in typical ADF. EPA has corrected the lbs COD/gallon ADF factor presented in the proposal TDD and AFB memo. In the final versions, the value has been updated to 14.28 pounds per gallon. AIRFIELD_LOAD - Airfield deicing loads Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 56 The Port Authority estimated baseline COD loadings127 for JFK, EWR, and LGA to equal approximately 8.7 million; 12.3 million; and 2.5 million lbs., respectively.128 These COD loadings were calculated pursuant to equation 10 - 1 in the TDD and are based on th e Port Authority data for the 2008/2009 deicing season ADF usage (100 percent glycol). The above COD loadings are presented to show the magnitude of the AFBR treatment system that would be required to comply with the effluent limitations under the Proposed Rule when compared to ALB’s COD loading of only 0.1 million lbs.129 [FOOTNOTE: 127 These are theoretical loadings based on ADF usage, not estimates of what will be discharged to receiving waters, and are presented here for comparison purposes only. As des cribed later in these comments, the actual pollutant loadings from these airports associated with deicing activities are thoroughly regulated and are not causing any violations of receiving water quality standards.] [FOOTNOTE: 128 Baseline COD loadings are calculated based on the ADF usage for 2008/2009 season compiled by the Port Authority for each airport. The calculation also reflects the available COD (i.e. 80 percent of Type I and 10 percent of Type IV) of what is applied.] Response: EPA’s estimate o f baseline COD loadings for JFK, EWR, and LGA are 5.2 million, 10.7 million, and 4.2 million pounds, respectively. These estimates were based on information provided by the airlines operating at these airports in response to the airline questionnaires on ADF purchased for the 2002/2003, 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 deicing seasons, as described in Section 9 of the final TDD. As explained in the preamble, EPA did not establish uniform controls for aircraft deicer discharges at existing airports. Such controls will be established on a BPJ basis. AIRFIELD_LOAD - Airfield deicing loads Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 10 Page 44686, Section VII.B.1. The proposed effluent limitation guideline fails to address collection and treatment of ADF at other loca tions within the airfield that these chemicals are applied. EPA, in its proposed regulation simply addresses technologies that are intended to collect spent fluids at the point of application. No collections efforts are discussed for the rest of the airfie ld where additional aircraft and airfield deicing fluids are discharged. If the regulation is promulgated as proposed, at least 40% of aircraft deicing fluids and up to 100% of airfield deicing fluids will not be subject to collection and treatment. Page 4 4689, Section VII.C.2. EPA excluded a significant pollutional load from these industrial activities. EPA, in promulgating the effluent limitation guideline must evaluate the collection and treatment of airfield wastewaters. The fact that no airports are cu rrently collecting airfield wastewater is not a reason to exclude this waste stream from evaluation. The deicing chemicals applied to the airfield, along with ADF discharged to the airfield from airplanes, are significant industrial waste sources that are being discharged without treatment.54 Response: See the responses to ADF_Avail EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 excerpt 83, ADF_Avail EPA - HQ OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208.1 excerpt 3, and ADF_Avail EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 excerpt 40. AIRFIELD_LOAD - Airfield deicing l oads Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 21 Page 44693, Section VII.E.3. Discontinuing the use of urea is a BMP, it should not be BAT. EPA has not evaluated BAT for collection and treatment of contaminated airfield runoff. EPA based the BAT solely on the discharge of ammonia, when the vast majority of airports do not use urea. No attempt was made to evaluate the other pollutants discharged from the airfield that are associated with deicing that will remain following complete implementation of the proposed ELG Response: Based on the continued use of urea at selected airports, EPA identified product substitution as an available control technology that is economically achievable for airfield pavement deicing chemicals. See Preamble section VI.B.1 for more information. EPA’s selection of product subst itution as the basis for the BAT and NSPS requirements for airfield deicing discharges for the final rule is described in the final preamble EPA’s analysis for collection and treatment of airfield deicers discharges is documented in the Technical Developme nt Document. AIRFIELD_LOAD - Airfield deicing loads Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 24 Page 44696, Section VII. J. 2.a EPA states that the amount of airfield deicers discharged could theoretically be zero because they could infiltrate into the ground. This is still a discharge to the environment, although not a discharge to surface waters. EPA must recognize the significant environmental conditions that result in the contamination of groundwater as a result of this industry. The Agency should no t leave this issue to the state regulatory agencies to address as it has in other effluent limitation guidelines (i.e. landfill effluent limitation guideline). Almost 100% of airfield deicers applied to the airfield, excluding a small percentage that may b e collected at deicing pad collection systems, will be released to the environment. The proposed ELG will not eliminate any discharge of airfield deicing chemicals. Response: While ELGs apply to discharges to surface water today’s requirements for airfie ld deicing discharges are based on product substitution. Therefore discharges to any environment will be reduced accordingly. EPA understands, however, that its job in establishing ELGs is to control discharges of pollutants to surface waters. AIRFIELD_ LOAD - Airfield deicing loads Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 26 Page 44696, Section VII. J. 5. EPA states that most airports would have non - continuous and somewhat infrequent urea discharges. Certain airports that have used urea historically may have elevated ammonia in its storm water and/or groundwater discharges thr oughout the year, not just during deicing events. The use of urea over an historical period at an airport leads to ground saturation of high levels of ammonia55 that are discharged every time is rains not just when urea is being applied. It may take several years of no urea use before ammonia levels return to normal in airfield runoff. Response: Today’s requirements for airfield deicing discharges are based on product substitution. Therefore urea will not saturate the ground. To the extent that airports el ect to meet the ammonia compliance alternative limit, EPA acknowledges that urea may be discharged throughout the year. However, the highest concentration of discharge would be a short time after the initial application. The permit authority may choose t o establish more frequent monitoring for effluent limitations for a specific airport, depending on circumstances. AIRFIELD_LOAD - Airfield deicing loads Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 42 Page 6 - 4, Section 6.2.1. EPA states that it has limited data on airfield deicing storm water that does not also contain aircraft deicing storm water. It is highly unlikely to find any airport where airfield storm water runoff does not contain spent ADF. The whole reason that only 60% of applied ADF can be colle cted at the gates and pads is that a significant amount of the applied fluids remains on the aircraft or is discharged to the airfield. It is safe to assume that all airfield runoff will contain some components of ADF. So even at Detroit Metro, where EPA a sserts that airfield collection ponds do not contain aircraft deicing storm water, it probably receives ADF that falls from aircraft during taxiing and takeoff. While it may be possible to collect spent ADF that does not contain airfield chemicals, it is n ot realistic to obtain airfield runoff that does not contain ADF. Response: EPA agrees that it is difficult to obtain airfield runoff that does not contain ADF. The Detroit Metro data were referenced as one source of data that reflected airfield pavemen t deicers, as opposed to ADF only. AIRLINE_PERMIT - Require airlines as permittees Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 5 (ANC Airport) Need to allow for separate or multiple permits at one airport It may be that one or more companies are located so that they may wish to operate their own deicing pad or GRV rather than rely on a common use pad or GRV. In addition, it may be that airlines w ill want to form an ADF consortium rather than go t hrough the airport authority. Response: The ELG is silent on implementation with regards to airport or airline permittees. It is designed to incorporate multiple approaches (e.g. individual permittees, c o - permittees, and general permits) Decisions on whether airlines are to be included in an NPDES permit, either as copermittees or under multiple permits, is are at the discretion of the permit authority. AIRLINE_PERMIT - Require airlines as permittees Comm ent Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 6 Current way the regulation is written, it puts the entire onus on the airport authority to control deicing. See Sec. 449.1, Typical airport authorities do not typically deice aircraft; airline and ground service56 co mpanies do. It appears that the rule is trying to change normal business model used here to a European model where the airport authority controls the deicing operations. This will be a major shift in liabilities and responsibilities that may not be the saf est or economically feasible. Each airline that deices or each FBO that provides deicing services should be required to obtain a permit. Response: See response to 1212.1 #5 (above) and response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule d oes not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports.) Also, as is the case at any location where multiple parties at a NPDES permitted site may generate wastewater, the permit holder is legally responsible for complying with any requirement in its discharge permit. As such, it is up to that permit holder to determine how to comply. The rule does not require the permit holder to control deicing operations, but rather that the permit holder ensure its permit req uirements are being met. AIRLINE_PERMIT - Require airlines as permittees Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 - 14 (MSP Airport) ELG should make co - permittees the preferred structure for airport NPDES permits. The draft ELG is written from the pers pective that airport authorities maintain an airport's storm water discharge permits. As detailed throughout the ELG documentation, one of the primary activities of concern is the application and subsequent potential release of ADF to the environment. The vast majority of airport authorities do not purchase, store, manage, or apply ADFs at their airport. These activities are under the direct control of airlines or fixed based - operators. The activities of these airport tenants have a direct impact on the discharge water quality of an airport's storm water discharges and these tenants should be included as permittees on an airport's storm water discharge permit. The EPA should specifically state that its preferred permit structure is for the permit writers to include as co - permittees on NPDES permits the entities responsible for the activities leading to direct impacts on the quality of the storm water discharge. Language indicating the acceptability of this structure should be included within the supporting d o cumentation for the ELG. Response: See response to 1212.1 #5 (Lytle) (above - ELG is silent on co - permittees). As explained in the final rule preamble, some airports have NPDES discharge permits where they are the sole permittee; other airports have p ermits that include co - permittees such as airlines, and sometimes FBOs and other parties. EPA has examples of airports in both circumstances that are currently complying with the final rule requirements. If an airport wishes to include airlines or FBOs and co - permittees, they should raise that issue with the permitting authority. EPA, unless it is the permit authority, does not determine the permittees. That matter is appropriately decided by the permit authority in consultation with the discharger. AI RLINE_PERMIT - Require airlines as permittees Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 146 (ACI) Perhaps EPA assumes too much by not considering alternatives to its universal believe that airport authorities are always the appropriate target for obtai ning NPDES permits for aircraft deicing operations. In fact, many airports across the country have airline partners as copermittees on their NPDES stormwater permits. EPA must also realize that airports do not always permit every industrial operation that occurs at an airport. The industry’s standard practice is for an “aviation fuel system consortium” to obtain its own permit for fuel farms, fueling operations, etc. Airports are not co - permittees in those instances. In addition, many airports require airli nes to separately permit their large hanger operations. The key issue57 here is that EPA’s Proposed Rule presumes that the airport will obtain NPDES permits for the airline’s deicing operations. The increased liability and cost EPA is proposing to impose on airports may alter airports’ roles in how aircraft deicing is permitted. More than one airport has indicated that, based on the small and infrequent use of ADF by the tenant airlines, they either will forbid future deicing (cannot fly if deicing is needed) or will force airlines to separately permit their operations. EPA has not even considered this issue in its Proposed Rule. How EPA addresses the “information collection” difficulties being expressed in this section of comments may well dictate how airport s approach permitting decisions. Response: See response to 1212.1 #5 (Lytle) in this comment code category (ELG is silent on co - permittees), and EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, excerpt number 14 . Also, the final rule does not establish uniform requiremen ts for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports. Therefore, this comment is not applicable to the final rule. Finally, in evaluating the regulatory options for today's final rule, where airlines are co - permittees on an airport's discharge permit, EPA evaluated the costs accordingly and determined them to be economocally achievable, both for the airports and the airlines. ALASKA - Alaskan airport ADF collection Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 8 (ANC Airport) Currently, gas - and - go cargo operations at ANC do anti - icing on landing during certain weather conditions. This allows them to avoid doing deicing prior to departure. This anti - icing allows for less glycol usage and a quicker turnaround. However, if ANC is required to use a deic ing pad, this practice will not be allowed. We believe it would be too difficult to mix incoming and outgoing aircraft on one or two pads. To have a separate pad just for incoming, anti - icing operations would likely be cost prohibitive for the amount being done and collected. Recommend that if only anti - icing is being done, that a GRV only be required regardless of total glycol usage. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports). ALASKA - Alaskan airport ADF collection Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1221.1 - 1 (Alaska Air Group) The proposed rule requires collection of 20% of applied ADF using Glycol Recovery Vehicles (GRVs) for Tier Two airports. The cost implications of this proposed rule on small airports in the state of Alaska are significant. As an example, listed below are estimated costs for GRV collection of ADF at BET(all costs in 2006 dollars.): The c osts listed above reflect only the projected GRV operations. The cost to then hold (via tanks) the liquid and treat the material would run into the millions of dollars. Tank Capital costs, as estimated by EPA, would be $1,645,712. In summary, at a small ai rport in northern Alaska, such as BET, over two million dollars in capital costs, along with annual GRV costs exceeding $40,000, would be spent before treatment costs are even considered. These costs would be incurred to collect and treat approximately 1,0 00 gallons of deicing fluid in support of just two to three flights daily. These costs, and collection rates, would be required at other state of Alaska arctic facilities as well, such as OME and OTZ. This would require the state of Alaska, the property ow ner of each of these facilities, to spend millions of dollars for each facility for an exceedingly low COD reduction amount at each location, and little environmental benefit.58 Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final ru le does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports). ALASKA - Alaskan airport ADF collection Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1221.1 - 2 Glycol Recovery Vehicles (GRVs) are estimated to cost approximat ely $400,000 per unit, according to EPA and other sources. According to the EPA analysis, OTZ would have capital costs less than $400,000 for GRV Capital Costs

– however it is not possible to purchase "less than one" GRV. In addition, EPA estimates that JN U, BET, and OME airports would purchase one full GRV plus a "portion" of a second GRV

– once again, this is not possible

– GRVs can only be purchased as units of one and in remote locations, such as Alaska, rental of GRVs is not an option. Additional revie w of GRV costs needs to occur. It is impossible to determine if the Economic Test is correct if the basic premise (purchase of GRVs) is not correct for each location. Small airports in Alaska and other locations have very little income elasticity in which to pay for infrastructure improvements - the addition of a single GRV at a large airport is not a significant percentage of their overall operational costs, however at a small airport a GRV, and personnel to maintain and operate it, represents a large perc entage of the operating budget. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports). ALASKA - Alaskan airport ADF collecti on Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1221.1 - 3 Many cities in Alaska, including those with jet service, do not have a local POTW and therefore would need to collect and treat the glycol on - site. As currently stated, the rule would require at least three arctic stations (OME, OTZ, BET) to collect 20% ADF and then treat the influent. At each of these locations, a POTW is not available so the airport would need to independently build and operate a treatment facility. Anaerobic Fluidized Beds (AFB) has been selected as the best available treatment technology, however their only application in the US is at larger regional airports and riot at airports with small - scale deicing operations. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports). EPA notes that in evaluating the costs of the regulatory alternatives considered for BAT and for the promulgated NSPS requirements in today’s final rule, EPA did not assume any airport would meet discharge requirements by sending the collected ADF to a POTW. Rather, where EPA estimated costs for an airport to collect ADF, EPA similarly included costs for on - site treatment to meet the COD disch arge limit/standard. ALASKA - Alaskan airport ADF collection Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1221.1 - 4 GRV collection is required for all "Tier Two" airports, regardless of quantity and weather conditions. However, at locations in arctic Alaska, such as BET, there is no stormwater during the deicing season59 (October

– March) to collect as temperatures rarely , if ever, go above freezing. GRVs are not designed to pick up small "puddles" of deicing fluid but to collect stormwater. In locations in the arctic the fluid becomes encapsulated in the snow and eventually becomes runoff during the spring thaw. Thus ADF application and stormwater runoff are not linked. To be able to collect and treat ADF at these airports, different collection and treatment strategies would be required from an engineering perspective. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TE CH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports). Also see the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 excerpt 13. ALASKA - Alaskan airport ADF collection Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1225.1 - 1 (AK DOT) Our small airports have a relatively high number of commercial aircraft departures (including jet aircraft) for the site of communities they serve due to their remote locations, with no access :, to the road system. Yet, these airports utilize small amounts of aircraft deicing fluid and runway deicers because of climate conditions (dry and cold), as well as runway maintenance scheduling. Therefore , the aircraft departure threshold levels in the propo sed rule will potentially impact these small, remote airports with increased costs, yet will result in only modest reductions in overall wastewater discharge from airport and aircraft deicing operations given the limited quantities used. Also, because of t heir remoteness, and aircraft scheduling, these airport runways are generally prepped for the individual jet flights each day rather than maintaining continuous operation: around the clock. Mechanical methods are preferred methods for runway deicing. For e xample, in Kotzebue, a town of 3,120 people, there are about 12,000 annual departures (including passenger and freight jet planes and prop planes) and the fluid usage is about 1,000 gallons/winter. Furthermore, at most of our airports where there is no air port traffic tower, the numbers of departures are not tracked. The threshold of 1000 jet flights/year should be raised to 2000 jet flights/year in order to avoid causing large increased costs to small rural airports with proportionately small environmental benefit. A higher threshold would more precisely reflect the intended scope for the national standards. However, departure thresholds are not a good basis for the regulation. The thresholds would be more effective if based on the quantities of deicing pro ducts utilized, such as the thresholds for benchmark monitoring in the MSGP ( Air Transportation Sector S). Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or tre atment of ADF at existing airports).. Also see the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 excerpt 13. ALASKA - Alaskan airport ADF collection Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 13 (ATA) It is recognized that the type of storm event (snow, ice, sleet, freezing rain) will impact collection efficiency. This fact further differentiates Alaskan airports, which make up a substantial fraction of the sub - 90,000 gallon airports impacted by the rule. Due to the long periods of below freezing temperatures, the runoff characteristics of the storm events are substantially altered and deicing materials are not available for collection (due to lack of runoff) and are encapsulated within the snow.45 Thus, for these airports, collection strategies mu st be significantly different than airports located within the lower 4860 states. This, too, represents a concrete process and engineering distinction that can be taken into account in establishing ELG thresholds. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA ) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports). To the extent that new primary airports are built in Alaska, these airports will be required to meet a collection standard. The NSPS geographic cutoff was based on the assumption that primary airports in colder climates will be the heaviest users of ADF. See section the preamble for more details. During the time period covered by EPA's Airport Questionnaire, both deicing pads and plug & pump systems were utilized by airports for the purposes of collecting spent ADF. The simple fact of installation and use of a CDP is sufficient for an airport to demonstrate its compliance with the collection requirement. However, should an airport decide to use a different method of demonstrating compliance, the final rule provides compliance alternatives, including a pollution prevention provision, as a means of addressing variability in ADF collection at different airports. Mor eover, there is nothing the final regulation that would prohibit mechanical deicing. EPA encourages this practice, as it reduces or eliminates chemical use, and therefore reduces or eliminates pollutant discharges. ALASKA - Alaskan airport ADF collection Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 1 Thank you for including Alaska in the data collection and detailed analysis in the development of this ELG. This has not always been the case. The recent Construction and Development ELG has table after table where it says "No Data" for Alaska. In that case Alaska has to comply with ELGs that do not include Alaskan conditions or costs. We are glad to see the EPA staff who developed this ELG did make the effort to include Alaskan conditions and costs. Response: No response required. ALT_ADF - Alternative ADF products Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1204.1 - 4 Research should be implemented by the EPA to find new inexpensive, non - hazardous deicing methods for smaller, less - trafficked airfields. Response: EPA acknowledges that new inexpensive, non - hazardous materials for deicing would be beneficial. Based on conversations with airline and airport associations, EPA is aware that companies are performing such research. See the pollution prevention discussion section in the preamble. Further, EPA wants to encourage pollution prevention practices and technologies to reduce aircraft deicing discharges and has included provisions in the final NSPS for a pollution prevention credit. ALT_ADF - Alternative ADF prod ucts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208 - 5 The EPA should consider evaluating the variation of BOD between deicing products such that any of the potential new low BOD products can be used to offset usage of a higher BOD impact product and result61 in c orresponding lower recovery requirements. Ultimately the percentage limits for ADF applied versus recovered should be based on BOD load of the fluids and not just volume of ADF. Response: See the response for comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1204.1 excerpt 4 . ALT_ADF - Alternative ADF products Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208 - 10 Regarding the proposed ELGs related to pavement deicing materials, EPA is proposing compliance practices which would totally eliminate or greatly limit the use of products co ntaining urea. EPA states that it recognizes that one of the main reasons for urea's use appears to be the low cost compared to other products. Has EPA thoroughly investigated the potential final cost to airport authorities, as well as "pass through" costs to the traveling public of switching to alternative products that are potassium acetate or sodium formate based? Response: EPA evaluated the cost for airports to switch from urea to potassium acetate use, as described in TDD Section 10.3. In addition, E PA evaluated the economic impact of the regulation

– including the pass through costs to passengers - as discussed in the Economic Analysis. EPA also notes the pollutant removals that would be realized under this requirement and notes that they are subst antial. ALT_ADF - Alternative ADF products Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208 - 11 There is some concern about the commercial availability of the alternative pavement deicing products if there is a sudden increased demand by airports which formerly used urea - based pavement deicers. Response: EPA does not anticipate a problem with the availability of alternative pavement deicing products. There are many different airfield deicing products currently available from different vendors. The majority of airports in the U.S. use these deicing chemicals and it is unlikely that the marginal increase in demand associated with this regulation will cause a shortage of all airfield deicing chemicals. Furthermore, there is a lag time between the promulgation of effluent limitations guidelines and their applicability in the country. The rules are not self - implementing but are implemented in NPDES permits. Thus the requirements will not take effect in a real sense until they are applied in the next cycle of perm it issuance after the effective date of the rule. Practically, this means the rule will take effect in for some jurisdictions within months of its promulgation, for other airports years, depending on the timing of the issuance of the next permit within th e particular state. ALT_ADF - Alternative ADF products Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 2 Variability of "Active Ingredients": Under page 44682, Section V, (C) (a), references Ethylene and Propylene Glycol as the typical active ingredient in A DF. There are also approved 2 ADF using DEG (Diethylene Glycol), Glycerin/PG, and Propanediol Ethylene or Propylene Glycol, as presented on page 44682, Section V. (C) (a)2 SAE AMS approved

– Anti - Icing Materials International Laboratories (AM IL) (Trimethy lene glycol) (as well as a non - glycol based ADF using Sorbitol/Glycerol). Each have there62 own unique degradation pathways, BOD, and COD levels. Were these ADFs identified as in use during the questionnaire phase, airport visits, or industry interviews? Response: Data from EPA's airline detailed questionnaire did not identify any ADF usage that was not propylene glycol - based or ethylene glycol - based. Any chemical may be used as long as it meets the limits in the rule. ALT_ADF - Alternative ADF products Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1229.1 - 1 NuSil Technology offers, commercially available, curable silicone ice phobic coatings that significantly reduce ice adhesion when applied on various surfaces, including aluminum. Commonly used application metho ds include both spraying and dipping. Silicones have been formulated and manufactured for aircraft, aerospace, engineering and healthcare applications for over fifty years. These silicone materials range from adhesives, sealants and coatings with contact a ngles of 107° to 116°; materials with contact angles greater than 90° are considered hydrophobic and are used in a myriad of industries. Hydrophobic/ Ice - Phobic silicone coatings have proven to be very beneficial to prevent the buildup of ice on aerodynami c and control surfaces in preflight and in - flight operations. NuSil’s ice - phobic silicone coatings have demonstrated success in select military aircraft applications and are currently under evaluation by the FAA for expanded commercial use. These silicone coatings, like all silicones when cured, are biologically and chemically inert. They remain nearly unaltered when exposed to weather, UV, and broad operating temperatures. By utilizing existing resources with commercially available materials, airports will minimize the costs associated with implementing silicone ice - phobic coating technology. With a minimal amount of force required to shed ice from these cured coatings, silicone ice phobic coatings can be combined with existing forced - air or hot - air deicing systems. Truck - mounted forced - air systems can be retrofitted on current deicing trucks to implement a forced air system. Existing double gantry forced - air spray systems can be utilized as well. Additionally, in extreme environments fluorosilicone coatings can provide the necessary fuel and solvent resistance to avoid degradation when small amounts of glycol and water are added to the forced - air. Response: See the response for comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1204.1 excerpt 4 . ALT_ADF - Alternative ADF product s Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1229.1 - 2 Silicones are elastomeric and flexible even under extreme temperatures, making them excellent coatings and sealants. As adhesives, their low modulus at extreme temperatures offer relief to bonded substrates w ith mismatched coefficients of thermal expansion. In recent years, silicone coatings have gained popularity in many aircraft applications due to their broad operating temperature range, excellent ice phobic characteristics, and resistance to many different aviation fluids. Application usage shows certain silicones have a Glass Transition Temperature of - 130°C. Minimal physical property degradation is observed after multiple short exposures to 300°C or continuous use at 200°C. [See remaining text that presen ts various ice adhesion tests and results and references re: silicone - based coating for aircrafts.] Response: See the response for comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1204.1 excerpt 4 .63 ALT_ADF - Alternative ADF products Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1229.1 - 3 We have demonstrated that ice buildup is a serious problem and has major economic impact in the aircraft industry, resulting in multiple efforts to understand and improve the issue. In particular, R - 2180, R - 1009, R - 1082, R - 3975 and R - 3930 performed alm ost 10 times better than many other commercially available materials typically used in aircraft applications. It is believed that the surface energy of the material or coating can have a dramatic effect on ice adhesion, and perhaps a complex interaction be tween the ice and the silicone coating that reduces adhesion. Thus, it would be valuable in future studies to measure the surface energies of the materials tested to determine any correlation between the ice adhesion and surface energy of the coating. The silicone ice - phobic coatings tested show contact angles greater than 100? and a small rate of change over the time period tested. Future studies are being conducted to target contact angles greater than 128° and even aim as high as 154°. This increased con tact angle will provide for the next generation ice phobic coatings to improve upon the existing technology. Response: See the response for comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1204.1 excerpt 4 . ALT_ADF - Alternative ADF products Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 003 8 - 1229.2 - 1 NuSil Technology offers curable ice phobic silicone coatings that significantly reduce ice adhesion when applied to aluminum surfaces. Application methods include: spraying or dipping. There are several current strategies to eliminate or reduc e ice buildup, such as chemical or thermal de - icing and defrosting. Unfortunately, most of these options can be hazardous and detrimental to the environment, expensive, or tedious/impractical in many situations. Department of the Army, Engineer Research an d Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) tested ice adhesion to several NuSil ice - phobic coatings using the Zero Degree Cone test. In this test, ice is grown in a gap between two concentric, cylindrical surfaces. The f orce required to push the inner cylinder out of the ice collar is measured to determine the adhesive strength of the ice to the coating. Samples are frozen at - 10 oC for 48 hours and the nominal shear stress for ice release is calculated from the measured maximum load divided by the surface area of the coated pin/ice interface. The results for NuSil’s five unique silicone coatings are reported below. The products listed are either room temperature cure (RTV) or ramped heat cure and also differ in mechanical properties and jet fuel and solvent resistance. Mean Stress is measured in kPa. Bare Aluminum stress is referenced at 1520kPa. 1. R - 1009, 8kPa R - 1082, 27kPa R - 3930, 47kPa R - 3975, 22kPa R - 2180, 37kPa These silicone coatings, like all silicones when cured, are biologically and chemically inert. They remain practically unaltered when exposed to weather, UV, and broad operating temperatures. For more details outlining the extensive testing conducted using NuSil’s ice - phobic coatings, please reference the attac hed appendix A. [See submittal FDMS 1229.1 for appendix A] Response: See the response for comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1204.1 excerpt 4 .64 ALT_ADF - Alternative ADF products Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 11 We encourage EPA to develop guidance for the states on the environmental impacts or safety issues associated with use of alternative pavement deicers that can be used in writing permits. See comments by ADOT&PF on use of alternative deicers in the Arctic. Response: The final rule and technical support document discuss the widespread use of pavement deicers that are not urea - based. EPA has not identified in the record any specific safety issues with using non - urea based deicers. Currently available infor mation may be found in the technical development document and the final record for this rule. EPA is not aware of any environmental or safety issues associated with non urea based deicers in the Arctic. In fact, EPA had researched airfield deicer efficie ncy and it the literature documents urea as less effective at low temperatures that potassium acetate. Additionally, most of the Alaskan airports that responded to the questionnaire indicated that they use potassium acetate at that airport location. Ho wever in the event that there are weather conditions that EPA is not aware of, an airport may elect to use urea as long as the affected runoff is collected and treated. ALT_ADF - Alternative ADF products Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 46 Giv en the above, as proposed, the rule would immediately eliminate one of the most commonly utilized pavement deicing products on a nationwide basis. To state an obvious but important point that is sometimes lost in this rulemaking, both anti - icing and deicin g are needed for effective winter storm management. There are serious safety and operational issues that cannot be ignored by this rulemaking. We believe that on the whole, operational and safety issues must always warrant the EPA erring on the side of cau tion. Therefore, AAAE believes that the final rule must contain a provision that would recognize that where safety concerns would pose a challenge to the complete elimination of urea use for airfield pavement deicing, airports may be exempt from the urea b an until a mutually agreeable alternative can be found. Response: As presented in TDD potassium acetate was reported as the top deicing/anti - icing chemical (by weight) used on airfield pavement during the three winter seasons surveyed by EPA. In terms of the number of airports using a specific airfield deicing chemical, potassium acetate and sand were most commonly reported. Data collected by EPA and included in the rule record document the safe use of potassium acetate as an airfield deicing chemical and EPA anticipates that most airports will cease urea use through application of product substitution. However, EPA has retained an alternative whereby airports that continue to use urea for safety or operational issues may discharge resulting stormwater pro vided they comply with an effluent limitation for ammonia as nitrogen. Additionally, EPA has not found any data to suggest that urea is any more effective than potassium acetate or that there are operations reasons that would require the use of urea. ALT_A DF - Alternative ADF products Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1237.1 - 1 The SERDP and ESTCP programs, managed by the Department of Defense (DOD), have helped to fund several programs to find environmentally - friendly and less corrosive drop - in substitut es for these65 chemical deicers. Such deicers have been tested under DOD - specific test conditions and for DOD - specific materials. Octagon has now made its EcoFlo ADF commercially available as discussed below. This ADF is covered by U.S. Patent Nos. 7,048,871 ; 7,105,105; and 7,169,321. Octagon is currently selling a reduced - glycol, environmentally - friendly ADF product called EcoFlo to commercial airlines. At least six airports in Northwestern United States have used this product during winters of 2008 - 2009 and 2009 - 2010. (http://www.octagonprocess.com/products_ecoflo.html?cache=1). The benefits of EcoFlo, compared to propylene glycol (PG) based ADFs, are as follows: • Majority of product is bio - based, reducing the carbon footprint by over 50% • The BOD5 is 35% lower • The COD is 25% lower • • It is the lowest aquatic toxicity ADF currently on the market, with LC50 values for daphnia magna and fat minnows, well over 10,000 mg/L • o The product is free of triazole corrosion inhibitors or nonylphenol ethoxylate sur factants, which are toxic or have toxic biodegradation products • o It wets aircraft surfaces very well, yet has one of the lowest tendencies to foam. Response: EPA notes that this rule does not apply to discharges from military airports. Also, s ee the r esponse for comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1204.1 excerpt 4 . ALT_ADF - Alternative ADF products Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1237.1 - 2 A reduced BOD and reduced COD AAF (Type IV) product that is also at least 75% less toxic to aquatic species is also b eing developed and Octagon hopes to make this environmentally - friendly AAF available for airports and airlines in the near future. The use of an environmentally - friendly AAF, which falls mostly on the runways, will also reduce the discharge of pollutants t o storm water. Response: See the response for comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1204.1 excerpt 4 . ALT_ADF - Alternative ADF products Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1237.1 - 4 The use of EcoFlo ADF, for example, will eliminate the need for any capital expenditures for an airport which conducts aircraft deicing and that uses less than 460,000 gallons/yr of ADF, and has more than 1,000 jet departures. Similarly, at airports using over 460,000 gall ons of ADF, it will reduce the cost of collecting and treating ADFs by switching to a more environmentally - friendly ADF. For example, if the EPA’s proposed recapture percentage is 60% for standard ADFs and the relevant pollutants in EcoFlo are 35% less tha n in standard ADFs, then only 39% of the EcoFlo ADF would need to be recaptured to obtain the same pollution control result. Response: See the response for comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1204.1 excerpt 4 . AMM_TRT_STD - Treatment standard for Ammonia as N Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1222.1 - 11 Using total nitrogen to measure an ammonia effluent limit would be better than measuring ammonia itself, as urea interferes with the ammonia test. Measuring an ammonia effluent limit with an ammonia test will “miss” what could be a significant portion of the nitrogen load from the discharge that will still66 be bioavailable or interfere with disinfection. The basis for compliance with an ammonia effluent limit should be total nitrogen (as ammonia nitrogen) so the urea and organic nitrogen component are accounted for in the effluent. Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that urea interferes with the ammonia test. According to the laboratory analytical method for ammonia (EPA Method 350.1), interferences in clude calcium and magnesium ions plus turbidity and color. The method does not list urea as an interference fo r the ammonia nitrogen method. EPA agrees with the commenter that total nitrogen that is bound in urea is bioavailable , however the nitrogen bou nd in urea does not have the same aquatic toxicity as ammonia nitrogen. Urea, when applied as a pavement deicer at an airport rapidly hydrolyzes to ammonia in the presence of urease , a naturally occurring enzyme. The equation below shows the hydrolysi s of urea to ammonia nitrogen. CO(NH 2 ) 2 + H 2 O + urease 2NH 3 +CO 2 The rate at which urea hydrolyses to ammonia depends on both temperature and pH. Rates of urea hydrolysis to ammonia at low temperatures are expected to be less than one - half the hydrolysis rate at springtime temperatures 1 , however the rates do not go to zero. In addition, nearly all residual urea remaining on pavement or grassy areas will convert to ammonia during the spring thaw. Therefore, all urea will eventually degrade to ammonia. As ammonia (the byproduct of urea) has the higher aquatic toxicity, developing an effluent limit for ammonia nitrogen rather than total nitrogen is the more protective approach to limit harmful pollutants from entering waters of the US.. As such, any discha rger subject to the rule must certify annually that it does not use airfield deicing products that contain urea or alternatively, airfield pavement discharges at all locations where pavement deicing with a urea - based product is occurring must achieve the n umeric limitation for ammonia as nitrogen as presented in Table II of Sec tion 449.10 of the final rule. BAT_20 - 20% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1193.1 - 3 While I agree with EPA’s choice of deicing pads and GRVs as the most ef fective collectors of ADFs used on aircrafts, they provide little ADF (urea and/or alternative deicer) collection on airfield pavement where pluggable drains are the only reasonable means of collection. And since “some airports discharge untreated contamin ated stormwater directly to waters of the United States” (Section VII (D)), the collection of effluents from aircrafts and airfield pavement is vital to achieve the requirement set before EPA in Section 306(a)(1). Therefore, I suggest EPA reconsider its pr oposed ADF Collection Technology Option 3, stated in Section VII (3), to read “all primary airports that have over 1,000 annual jet departures and 10,000 or more annual departures would be required to collect at least 20 percent of all available ADF throug h the employment of deicing pads, GRV and plug - and - pump technologies.”

1 . Keusch , P., Enzyme Kinetics: Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Urea . University of Regensburg, Germany. http://www.uni - regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/nat_Fak_IV/Organische_Chemie/Didaktik/Keusch/chembox_urease e.htm (accessed March 2012).67 Response: For the reasons explained in the preamble, the final rule does not include requirements to control aircraft deicing discharges at existing airports as such requirements will be established based on a site specific BPJ analysis. Further, today’s NSPS for aircraft deicing discharges is not based on GRVs. As such, this comment is no relevant to the final rule. See EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Ex cerpt 106. In addition, the commenter should note that EPA's NSPS collection requirement is only applicable to aircraft deicing contaminated stormwater and not to pavement deicer contaminated storm water. Airfield deicing has presented a challenge for air ports attempting to manage their contaminated stormwater streams. Airfield deicing is typically conducted over a large area, including areas with frequent aircraft traffic, such as runways, where active collection technologies (i.e. GCVs) are impractical to implement. At this time, EPA has not identified any available technologies for the collection of pavement deicing stormwater. As a result, EPA has selected a pollution prevention technology, product substitution, as the basis for today’s airfield pave ment deicing discharge requirements. BAT_20 - 20% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 14 When EPA polled users using GRV's on collection rates, did you ask how they determined it. Reason is that we have spoken with some operato rs collecting glycol that do not actually test the concentration of fluid they as collect. They will make an estimate or only test loads or partial loads that they know they did well on. May have resulted in real life collection rates being over estimated. Response: See comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1193.1 excerpt #3 However, EPA estimated the collection efficiency of GCVs based on all information available to it, including airport questionnaire responses and the ACRP report. EPA re - evaluated the data prior to finalizing the rule and reminds commenters that its collection efficiency represents available ADF. See the TDD for more information. BAT_20 - 20% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 105 EPA’s Designation of 20 Percent Co llection Efficiency as BAT for ADF Collection at Tier Two Airports Is Not Supported by the Record EPA presents no data to support its “estimate” that GRVs operating alone and independent of other collection systems will collect 20% of available ADF. As it does with respect to CDPs, the Agency merely asserts that based on information listed in the TDD it “estimates” the collection efficiency of the technology “alone” but provides no explanation of the methodology used to make the estimate. The public therefo re has no notice of EPA’s decision making on this point and, thus, no legitimate opportunity to comment on the Agency’s data, reasoning or conclusions. As to the Agency’s designation of 20% collection as reflective of GRV - only collection operations, the Re cord is effectively empty. While EPA notes that at the airports with GRV technology, collection efficiency ranged between 22.5 and 53%, this is drawn from the same ACRP report cited with respect to CDP performance and is subject to the same limitations. In addition, the ACRP report makes clear that “the overall effectiveness of glycol collection vehicles varies based on the number of vehicles used relative to the areas and deicing activities served.” 294 EPA makes no attempt to evaluate these factors. The c ited ACRP report goes on to highlight that collection efficiency “varies based on . . . whether [GRVs] are used in conjunction with68 other collection methods.” The Agency also admits that all of the systems evaluated used GRVs in combination with other tech nologies but made no attempt to analyze how GRV performance is affected. These other technologies ranged from catch basin inserts to sophisticated apron or pad collection systems.295 Further review of the Engineering Site Visit reports indicates that alter nate and multiple technologies have been applied at these airports. A few examples will suffice to demonstrate this point. MKE uses a centralized deicing facility, diversion valves, isolation valves and a GRV. 296 Clearly, this airport does not depend sole ly on a GRV. Although the airport has reported collection efficiencies of between 29.2 and 31.8%, these collection efficiencies are reflective of the totality of its deicing system, which depends on the use of a centralized deicing facility. Thus, at this airport, the actual cost of compliance with the Tier Two requirement is not just a function of the use of GRV collection technology, but a function of the application of a variety of technologies in addition to GRVs. Similarly, CVG uses deicing pads with a drain diversion system.297 Based on the Engineering Site Visit report, the GRV component of the collection system is clearly not the primary component deicing stormwater management. Specifically, the Engineering Site Visit Report notes that the GRV is “so metimes used to collect ADF contaminated stormwater during deicing events” (emphasis added). Likewise, PDX are highly dependent upon a gate collection system and the use of GRVs are considered a critical but secondary component of its complete collection s ystem. EPA also notes that the GRV system in combination with an apron collection system at BUF was effective in capturing 53% of the applied ADF, however, no information is provided related to the capture efficiency of the GRV collection component alone. Thus, use of this cost information is inappropriate for estimation of the cost of compliance with the 20% collection requirement because the GRV costs represent only a fraction of the system cost at BUF. These examples make clear that EPA’s GRV efficacy da ta are confounded by the presence of technologies in addition to GRVs that contribute to the collection efficiencies at each cited airport. As a result, while EPA has included only GRV’s in its Tier Two capital cost, the truth is that in order to achieve t he collection efficiencies demonstrated at the subject airports a great deal more infrastructure and technology beyond the GRVs themselves is required. Thus, the Agency has not successfully supported either the collection percentage of GRVs alone or the co st of achieving the collection percentages demonstrated by the airports in its database. The cost of the GRVs alone is not sufficient to produce the collection efficiencies observed at any of these airports. Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 14. BAT_20 - 20% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 106 In addition, EPA has not demonstrated that GRV operations sufficient to achieve the stated collection efficiency of 20% are possible in a manner consistent with safety and operational constraints at any individual airport, much less at every Tier Two airpo rt. As described above in connection with CDP usage, safety and operational considerations effectively define the operating envelope in which candidate collection technologies must function. Where GRVs must operate quickly to get out of the way of incoming aircraft and where they must skirt tarmac on which ADF is pooled in to avoid conflicts with gates or other aircraft in especially congested gate areas, for example, GRVs will become less efficient at capturing available ADF. These safety and operational f actors are multiplied here because the Proposed Rule requires that deicing is limited to areas “where available ADF is actively collected by GRVs.” 298 The potential for conflicts in such a setting are obvious, and it is clear that operators of both GRVs a nd aircraft will limit GRV operations to ensure that such conflicts do not occur. EPA, however, has not explained what it means by “actively” or considered the impact of those conflicts and the operators’ responses to them on the actual performance of the GRVs.69 Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 14. BAT_20 - 20% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 26 The EPA suggests that GRVs will meet with the 20 percent collection requirements and accordingly basically mandates their use as sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the 20 percent collection requirement. EPA provides no support indicating that an air port operating GRV(s) in accordance with the specifications set forth in the Proposed Rule can meet the 20 percent collection requirement. EPA provides no support showing that any airports currently operate GRVs using only the proposed (or similar) specifi cations. Response: See comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1193.1 excerpt #3 BAT_20 - 20% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 1 The proposed ELG will require most of the airports that are subject to the guideline to collect 20% of i ts deicing wastewater and treat it for 97% removal of COD. Setting this as the standard, the remaining 80% of its deicing wastewater will be discharged without any treatment. If the Agency establishes the rule in this manner, then a significant discharge(s ) of polluting substances from these facilities will continue to discharge without collection and treatment. Although the intent of effluent limitation guideline promulgation is to establish technology based controls, the Agency must address and/or recogni ze the significant environmental impacts if 80% of the ADF is authorized to be discharged without treatment under the proposed ELG. Response: See comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1193.1 excerpt #3. Also see section V of the Preamble for further discussion of EPA’s BAT analysis of ADF collection technologies. BAT_20 - 20% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 34 GRVs Are Not BAT if BAT Is Represented by a 20 Percent Collection Standard. EPA has determined that glycol recovery vehicl es (GRVs) represent a best available technology (BAT) for collection of applied ADF for airports that use less than 460,000 gallons of ADF. EPA also determined GRVs, when operated as specified by EPA, are capable of collecting 20 percent of applied ADF. We find a number of inaccuracies in and lack of support for EPA’s underlying assumptions with respect to GRV use. Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 14 . Also see section V of the Preamble for further discussion of EPA’s BAT analysis of ADF collection technologies.70 BAT_20 - 20% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 36 EPA’s Basis for Establishing GRVs as BAT Is Unclear. EPA identifies GRVs as a model technology capable of col lecting 20 percent of available ADF. However, EPA has provided no data, analyses, or support indicating that an airport relying solely on GRVs can achieve a 20 percent collection mandate. In addition, EPA has not demonstrated or identified that an airport operating a GRV (or even multiple GRVs39) using the proposed specifications set forth in Section 449.20(b)(1)(i) can meet the proposed collection requirements. EPA relies on GRV efficiency performance data from only four airports to establish the 20 percen t standard,40 [Footnote 40: TDD at 9 - 4. EPA relied on data from Grand Rapid’s Gerald R. Ford International (GRR), Providence’s Theodore Francis Green State (PVD), Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International (MKE), and Buffalo Niagara International (BUF) air ports.] even though 53 airports were found to currently use GRVs. EPA reported that those four airports collect 22.5 to 53 percent of applied ADF. However, as EPA also notes, none of those airports rely solely on GRVs to collect ADF. Each airport’s deicing collection system relies on a combination of GRVs with some other collection technology (catch basin inserts, plug and pump technology, and/or apron systems). GRR uses two tow - behind glycol collection units in conjunction with catch basin inserts. MKE com bines mobile glycol collection with a plug and pump system. BUF relies on two glycol collection vehicles and an apron collection system. In order to establish GRVs as BAT, EPA must be able to demonstrate that an airport can meet the proposed collection req uirements using only that technology. Otherwise, the model technology, as demonstrated above, is GRVs in combination with additional structural in - ground ADF collection, which EPA has not analyzed for purposes of the Proposed Rule. The Agency has simply fa iled to justify GRVs as a standalone model technology. If EPA intends for BAT to consist of GRV use in conjunction with another collection technology, the Agency must conduct the proper technical feasibility and cost analyses and re - propose. In addition, E PA provides no support indicating that an airport operating GRV(s) in accordance with the specifications set forth in section 449.20(b)(1)(i) of the Proposed Rule can meet the 20 percent collection requirement. EPA provides no support showing that any airp orts currently operate GRVs using only the proposed (or similar) specifications. If in fact any such airports exist, EPA should provide the collection efficiencies they achieve by operating them in that manner and name those airports as the basis for its m odel technology. GRV performance is impacted by a number of variables. EPA must demonstrate that they have accounted for these variables before setting a collection standard associated with GRVs. These variables include: the number of GRVs utilized; the ty pe of GRV used; weather conditions (including evaporation rate); whether they are used in conjunction with other collection methods, etc. As we will later discuss, EPA has not specified the type of GRV, number of GRVs, or other specific conditions under wh ich an airport can achieve 20 percent collection through employment of mobile collection technologies. We fail to see how EPA can establish GRVs as BAT for collecting 20 percent of available ADF without further analysis. Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 14. BAT_20 - 20% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 37 The Proposed Specifications for GRV Use Are Troublesome. In section 449.20(b)(1)(i) of the Proposed Rule, EPA proposes technical specifications to be set forth as permit requirements as one of three possible methods for demonstrating compliance with the 20 percent ADF collection requirement. The proposed specifications are problematic, unclear, and, as discussed in the pre vious section, have not been demonstrated to allow an airport to achieve the proposed 20 percent collection requirement. (1) EPA71 Should Not Use “GRV” as a Generic Term. The Proposed Rule specifies that an airport must use a “glycol recovery vehicle” or “GR V” to demonstrate compliance with the 20 percent collection requirement. A GRV is a specific trademarked brand and model of mobile collection technology. The class of mobile collection technology includes both truck chassis and trailer mounted equipment, a ll of which are employed at various airports. For example, many small airports use Mobile Collection Units (MCUs), which are tow - behind units. In addition, new technologies that accomplish the same function in different ways may appear in the future. The a ppropriateness of any particular type of mobile collection technology may vary by airport, and airports should be permitted to choose the technology within that class that best meets their individual collection needs. We do not believe EPA intended to requ ire that a specific brand or model of mobile collection technology be used to meet the proposed requirements; however that should be clarified in the final rule.41 [Footnote 41: For purposes of simplicity, ACI - NA’s use of the term “GRV” throughout these co mments is intended to represent all forms of mobile collection technology.] To the extent that EPA relies on mobile collection technology for any future collection standard, it must determine and confirm that any and all such collection units are capable o f meeting the model technology, or specify the precise units EPA is relying upon. Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 14. Based on comments received, EPA has revised documentation for the final rule to rep lace glycol recovery vehicle (GRV) with glycol collection vehicle (GCV). EPA thanks the commenter for pointing out the need for clarification. BAT_20 - 20% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 38 EPA Does Not Specify the Numbe r or Type of GRV(s) Required. Section 449.20(a)(1)(i) of the Proposed Rule requires the “[o]peration of a GRV...”(emphasis added). EPA, however, has not indicated the number or type of GRVs that may be required and how extensive the GRV collection program mu st be at any particular airport in order to collect 20 percent of available ADF. As proposed, EPA implies that operating a single GRV may be suitable to meet the 20 percent collection requirements. Good engineering practice, however, may suggest otherwise. In fact, multiple GRVs may be required, depending on a number of factors, including number of gates, the location of deicing activities and the airport layout. Surely, airports with multiple deicing locations and those using large quantities of ADF (but f alling under the threshold of 460,000 gallons) would require more than one GRV in order to successfully collect 20 percent of available ADF. Regardless, EPA does not specify whether multiple GRVs may be required or not to meet the model technology standard . EPA provides no guidance on how an airport would determine the number of GRVs necessary to collect 20 percent of available ADF. In the airport deicing questionnaire, EPA did not ask airports how many GRVs they operated. Yet, in Table 11 - 3 of the Technica l Development Document, EPA presents GRV capital and annual costs based on six airports. Conveniently, EPA assumes that each airport utilized only one GRV/airport, but this assumption is incorrect. Hence, EPA underestimates the costs of GRV implementation for the Proposed Rule. For costing purposes, EPA implies that the number of GRVs that may be required is a function of the number of deicing stormwater outfalls at the airport. However, EPA does not provide a rational basis for such a far - flung conclusion and our industry experts assert that there is no reasonable connection between the number of outfalls and the number of GRVs needed to attain a 20 percent collection standard. EPA must explain several inconsistencies in its analyses. First, a number of the airports in Table 11 - 3 operate more than one GRV. For example, Buffalo International Airport (Airport 6), with five outfalls, indicated in its questionnaire response that it has two vacuum trucks and provided capital costs of $610,000 to reflect those two trucks. Portland International Airport (Airport 5) also has two GRVs and has five outfalls. Meanwhile, Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International Airport (Airport 1) operates four GRVs and,72 while permitted for three outfalls, actually only discharges thro ugh one. These data clearly show there is no relationship between the number of GRVs operated and the number of outfalls. Rather the number of GRVs needed is a function of such factors as area to be deiced, the number of concurrent operations, the number o f gates where operations are occurring, and fleet mix, to name a few. Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 14. See comment code C_GRV response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 62. BAT_ 20 - 20% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 39 The airports in Table 11 - 3 do not rely solely on GRVs to collect spent ADF. For example, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (Airport 3) (two outfalls) operates one GRV; however, the airport also operates an extensive deicing pad system through which it complies with its current NPDES stormwater permit. Cincinnati’s GRV has little to no impact on its ability to meet its compliance requirements. The airport would have to operate many GRVs in order to collect what it current achieves through its deicing pad system. Buffalo (Airport 6) also relies on an apron collection system in addition to its two GRVs. Clearly, EPA has relied on airports with GRVs and another collecti on technology to assert the capabilities of a GRV - only technology option. Such an analysis, besides being unrealistic, provides EPA with the cost benefits of costing only a GRV (skipping the costs of multiple GRVs and additional collection systems) while e nhancing the performance and environmental benefits of an otherwise unproven model technology. Such an approach is arbitrary and capricious.42 [Footnote 42: There is no further reason to expand on EPA’s GRV/deicing outfall theories described in the TDD, bu t we point them out for additional support of our assertions: “EPA assumed that the number of deicing outfalls would be an approximation of the size of the deicing area; more deicing outfalls would indicate a larger deicing area and increased costs associa ted with removing ADF from that area.” There is absolutely no basis for this assumption. In fact, if we apply this assumption to the airports in Table 11 - 3, we would find that Cincinnati, which is estimated by EPA to use 715,936 gallons of ADF with only t wo outfalls, would incur GRV capital costs of only $246,330. In comparison, Portland, which is estimated to use 112,046 gallons of ADF annually with five outfalls, would incur capital costs of $615,825. Practical experience tells us that the number of GRVs needed is less a direct relationship to the number of outfalls, and more a function of a variety of factors such as the amount of ADF applied, the size of area served, type of GRV(s) used, and the existence of other collection infrastructure. EPA’s connec tion solely between number of outfalls and number of GRVs (via cost), is neither fully explained nor supportable.] Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 38. BAT_20 - 20% BAT is not supported Comment Info: E PA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 40 EPA also falsely assumes that the number of GRVs used is directly proportional to amount of fluid that can be collected.43 [Footnote 43: U.S. EPA, Economic Analysis for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards fo r the Airport Deicing Category (hereinafter EA) at 4 - 2 (July 2009).] Airports have actually found that there may be an optimal number of GRVs for spent ADF collection at a particular airport, above which additional fluid collection is not cost - effective.73 Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 38. BAT_20 - 20% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 42 EPA Should Not Require Immediate GRV Deployment In the Proposed Rule EPA requires th at “ADF collection by GRV shall commence as soon after deicing activities begin.” Such a requirement presents significant safety and operational impacts and is not possible in all operations. It is illogical for GRV collection to commence at the same time as deicing activities because there is nowhere for the GRV to operate until the aircraft has left the vicinity in which it was deiced. Continuous deicing may occur in a designated location until all aircraft have been deiced. It is not practical to require the deployment of a GRV for fluid collection in between the deicing of each aircraft. Coupled with aircraft, deicing trucks, and marshallers, the introduction of yet another mobile vehicle within the limited deicing area during winter weather conditions b ecomes a significant safety issue. It would also present operational challenges, adding substantial delays by forcing aircraft to wait for GRV collection to conclude after each previous aircraft is deiced. Requiring the immediate deployment of GRVs for ADF collection is simply impractical and should not be included in the Proposed Rule. Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 14. BAT_20 - 20% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 43 E PA Should Not Require the Use of an Emulsifier. EPA mandates the use of emulsifiers to theoretically enhance ADF collection. Industry experience, however, reveals that emulsifiers do not improve the collection performance of GRVs compared to clean water.44 [Footnote 44: Pers. Comm., Mike Svedruzic, Inland Technologies.] Thus emulsifier use is no longer standard industry practice. Requiring emulsifiers is merely an additional expense providing no additional environmental benefit. More importantly, emulsifier s represent an additional environmental threat that seems to contradict the intent of the Proposed Rule. Emulsifiers present concerns about toxicity, odor, and foam, to name a few. Quite possibly, their use would trigger additional permitting obligations a nd requirements from state permitting authorities that EPA has neither considered nor costed in its analyses. EPA cannot justify emulsifier addition as BAT. Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 14. BAT_20 - 20% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 4 The proposed regulation has suggested that GRV use is equivalent to a 20% ADF collection rate. EPA has not provided any data to support this statement. ADF collection efficiency at SLC has increased due to the purchase and subsequent use of a GRV. However, GRV use at SLC alone does not result in an ADF capture rate of 20%. SLC currently uses a combination of 22 active deicing pads, and a GRV to achieve an overall ADF collection rate of 20%. GRV data collected from a few airports that do not rely solely on G RV's to collect ADF does not represent the numerous airports that use this technology. The74 EPA is incorrect to assume that by relying solely on a GVR an airport can achieve a 20% ADF collection rate. If GRV is identified as a Best Available Technology (BAT ), EPA must be able to demonstrate that the 20% proposed collection requirement can be met using only that technology, which it has not done. Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 14. BAT_60 - 60% BAT is no t supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1223.1 - 5 (Baykeeper) We feel EPA can do better. EPA’s rule would require different levels of glycol reuse and recapture depending on the size of the airport. We feel that this approach is backward. Instead of addressing airports by size, EPA should look at the effect of the discharge. Working from EPA’s statement that deicing a single large jet has an effect on BOD5 similar to that of 1,000,000 gallons of raw sewage, requiring large airports to capture 60% of that would still permit a sewage - equivalent effect on BOD5 as 400,000 gallons. Would EPA ever permit a facility to discharge 400,000 gallons of raw sewage hundreds of times a day? EPA must keep in mind that these impacts add onto each other. If only one large jet were leaving per day, a 400,000 - gallon - per - jet - raw - sewage impact would be bad enough, but when added again and again as more and more jets take off, the inadequacy of the rule becomes apparent. A reasonable airport - wide storm water management sy stem should be able to do far better than 60% efficiency. Worse, the rule’s recapture requirements decline with airport size. A medium sized airport is allowed an 800,000 - gallon per - jet - raw - sewage equivalent discharge. A medium sized airport likely has few er flights per storm, but is allowed an equal or perhaps greater impact on the watershed as the larger airport. A small airport may have no requirement with regard to glycol discharges under the EPA rule, and thus are allowed an impact similar to that of m uch larger airports. Industrial Storm Water Management Plans are required of many facilities that are far smaller and less well funded than airports. Most airports are owned by governmental agencies and do not face the same economic pressures as privately owned industries. Glycol is relatively easily treated at standard wastewater treatment plants. Capturing the glycol and recycling or processing it should not be that hard. Storm water management is a well - developed procedure. Deicing pads and traditional storm water management techniques should be required of all airports that use deicing chemicals. Relatively easy, proven and cost effective techniques should be able to achieve recapture rates far in excess of 60% in all cold - weather airports. We hope that the EPA will require these steps, just as they’d require them for other types of facilities that discharge industrial storm water. Response: First, EPA is not aware of any technology or combination of technologies that can collect 100% of applied or even available ADF. The most efficient technology in terms of ADF contaminated stormwater collection in EPA’s record is centralized deicing pads. For the reasons explained in the final preamble, EPA did not select centralized deicing pads as the basis of a u niform ADF collection requirement at existing facilities. The preamble also explains why EPA did not establish any uniform requirements to control aircraft deicing discharges in the final rule. Requirements for these wastestreams will continue to be esta blished on a BPJ basis taking into account the unique situations present at each location. However, EPA notes that it did establish NSPS for aircraft deicing discharges and that it based the collection requirement on centralized deicing pads.75 BAT_60 - 60 % BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 92 (ATA) EPA’s Designation of 60% Collection Efficiency as BAT for ADF Collection at Tier One Airports Is Not Supported by the Record The basis for EPA’s designation of the 60% collection standard as BAT for ADF Collection at Tier One airports is not clear. There are two issues: (1) whether the standard is based on the Agency’s estimation of the collection efficiency of CDPs exclusive of other collection technologies

– i.e., the collection efficiency achievable by operating CDPs independent of other collection technologies; and (2) the analysis used to determine the numerical collection efficiency designated as BAT. The first issue has been resolved through communication with EPA staff, who have confirmed that the 60% collection standard is based on the operation of the model technology, CDPs, operating exclusive and independent of all other collection technologies including GRVs.259 This is consistent with the statement in the Notice that E PA estimates that CDPs “allow airports to capture about 60% of the available ADF.”260 This also is consistent with EPA’s costing methodology, which did not consider GRVs or other supplemental collection technologies as contributing any element of the cost expected to be incurred by Tier One airports.261 In addition, the technical specifications for CDPs deemed to meet the proposed 60% capture requirement require only that the CDP be “equipped with a fluid collection system, such as a perimeter trench and di version valve . . .” without mention of GRVs or other technologies. 262 We are appreciative that the Agency has resolved the ambiguity, which also emerges from other parts of the Notice.263 Unfortunately, the Agency has not provided a clear basis for its d etermination that CDPs achieve a 60% collection efficiency and, therefore, that CDPs achieve the proposed BAT for ADF Collection at Tier One airports. In the TDD, the Agency reports that the determination that CDPs achieve a 60% collection efficiency is ba sed on a review of “data on the performance of centralized deicing facilities across the United States and Europe.”264 However, of the documents the Agency cites in the TDD, a copy of only one is included in the Record. When asked whether the other documen ts were available, Agency staff reported that “they are not in the docket nor were they used in our findings or analyses.”265 Subsequently, we were informed that the references to the other documents included in the TDD would not be included in the “final” development document and that EPA had instead relied on Document - 1124 and perhaps Document - 0833.266 261 We note that in Section 11.1 of the TDD, entitled “Summary of Costs,” EPA indicates that the “60% Efficiency Scenario” “includes deicing pads with GR Vs and AFBR treatment.” TDD at 11 - 1. EPA also states that it “decided to estimate costs for three collection options,” including “centralized deicing pads in combination with GRVs.” TDD at 11 - 11. In addition, in Section 11.3 of the TDD (entitled “General M ethodology for Estimating Collection and Treatment Technology Costs”), subsection 11.3.2.1., EPA identifies “Deicing Pads with GRVs” as one of the “Collection and Control Alternatives for Spent ADF.” TDD at 11 - 16. There, EPA notes that “[a] number of airpo rts also use GRVs in combination with centralized deicing pads to maximize collection and containing ADF - contaminated stormwater.” The record flatly contradicts these statements to the effect that GRV costs are included in its estimation of costs associat ed with 60% collection. Nothing in the discussion of costs on page 11 - 17 of the TDD discusses GRVs. In addition, the Airport Impact Model (Document

– 0634) makes clear that the formula used to calculate the “Deicing Pad 3c Capital Costs” (see “CstAnnual” W orksheet, column CG) has five components: (1) deicing pad (column ET), (2) tanks (column DV), (3) piping (column DZ), (4) AFBR (column GD), and (5) monitoring and engineering cost (column GQ). GRV costs are not in any of these components. 262 Proposed § 44 9.20(b)(1)((ii). We note that a CDP could, in some sense, be “equipped with” a GRV, but the most natural reading of the provision is that the provision refers to appurtenances that are not separable from the CDP itself. 263 For example, the Agency observes that “some airports use GRVs in combination with CDPs in order to maximize collection and containments of ADF - contaminated stormwater,” we understand its 60% estimate of the collection efficiency is exclusive of any GRV activity. Notice at 44684, col. 3. In addition, Table VII - 2 in its Notice refers to “Centralized deicing pad + GRV” as the “technology basis” for the “60% ADF Capture” and “20% ADF Capture” requirements76 without unambiguously clarifying that “Centralized deicing pad” is the intended “technol ogy basis” for the 60% requirement and “GRV” is the intended “technology basis” for the 20% requirement. Notice at 44691. Response: EPA has modified the Technical Development Document to more clearly describe the determination of a 60% collection rate fo r centralized deicing pads. See the memo, "Centralized Deicing Pad ADF Collection Efficiency" (DCN AD01271) for further details of the collection efficiency determination. Also, EPA notes that this comment refers to Tier I airports. That was specific t o EPA’s proposed BAT aircraft deicing discharge requirements. For the reasons explained in the preamble, EPA did not establish aircraft deicing discharge requirements at existing facilities. Such requirements will continue to be set on a site - by - site, BP J basis. BAT_60 - 60% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 93 This raises obvious issues regarding whether the Agency has provided proper notice of and opportunity to comment on the basis of its Proposed Rule. The documents EPA now claims to have relied upon in reaching the conclusion that CDPs “allow airports to col lect 60 percent of the available ADF” provide no basis for making that determination. Document - 0833, a report from 1999 provides no analysis of the collection efficiency of CDPs. Document - 1124 (ACRP Report No.14), also provides no basis for EPA’s determi nation. While Document - 1124 lists centralized deicing facilities as having a performance range of “44 to 86 percent of applied glycol,” the document also states clearly that there is no statistical basis for that claim and the information should not be rel ied upon. 267 The report makes its limitations clear: The accuracy of performance characterizations is limited by a variety of factors . . . . In many cases, available data is representative of an airport’s deicing stormwater management system as a whole, rather than of a single component of the system. . . . there is no statistical basis for the source data, and under no circumstances should this information be interpreted as what could confidently be achieved at another airport.268 . . . Values shown repr esent extremes of reported or estimated performance from available information from a limited number of airports. No assumption should be made regarding the distribution of performance metrics between these extremes.269 EPA’s reliance on this data for dete rmination of CDP collection efficiency and application across airports is contrary to the express limitations of the document. Nevertheless, Document - 1124 appears to be the only basis for EPA’s designation of 60% as the collection efficiency of its BAT mo del collection technology.270 [FOOTNOTE:270 In the TDD, EPA also asserts that “[s]everal airports reported a relatively consistent efficiency of around 60 to 66 percent over varying winter seasons.” TDD at 9 - 5. This is cut and pasted directly from Document - 0744, a memorandum from EPA’s consultant ERG. In that memo this assertion is supported by the following footnote: “Deicing pad collection estimates were determined using industry collected data submitted to EPA. For specific data see DCN XXX Glycol Reco very Collection Memo (December 2007).” In other words, there is no support provided and the document in which it reportedly resides is not properly identified; the “DCN XXX” document which ERG apparently intends to refer is Document 0744, which is devoid o f any information regarding collection efficiencies of deicing pads.] Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 92. EPA is retaining 60 percent collection requirements for NSPS. Based on the information available to EPA, Denver International Airport (DIA) is the best example of a newer airport using CDP technology. DIA reported that it collects 68 percent of applied ADF; with 42 percent recycled and identified as77 collected from the deicing pad system and 26 percen t discharged to their POTW and identified as collected from limited deicing areas and taxiway/runway areas. See the DIA Site Visit Report and comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 01213.2, Comment Excerpt 1. Based on DIA usage estimates, 90 percent of ADF used is Ty pe I deicing fluid and 10 percent is Type IV deicing fluid. Available ADF is calculated to be 75 percent of Type I applied and 10 percent of Type IV applied. Thus, at DIA, 68.5 percent of the applied ADF is estimated to be available ADF (90 x 0.75 + 10 x 0 .10). Since the airport estimates that they recycle 42 percent of applied ADF (and that amount is collected from the CDP system), that system has achieved collection of 61 percent (42 / 68.5 x 100) of available ADF. BAT_60 - 60% BAT is not supported Comm ent Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 94 Finally, not only is the existence of data to support EPA’s decision lacking, the Agency has not provided an explanation of how it evaluated the documents that were cited in the TDD to arrive at an estimated colle ction efficiency. The Agency merely asserts that “[b]ased on this information, EPA estimates that facilities effectively operating a centralized deicing pad recover 60 percent of applied glycol.”271 Absent any explanation of its methodology for making the estimate, to the extent one existed, it is impossible to ascertain the validity of the Agency’s reasoning or the validity of its “estimate.” The importance of getting some explanation of the Agency’s reasoning is highlighted by the now disavowed examples i ncluded in the TDD. For example, to understand whether any particular estimate of collection efficiency has any basis, it is necessary to understand how the collection efficiency achieved by CDPs alone is determined where collection has been achieved using multiple collection technologies. However, every U.S. airport cited in the TDD reports the use of multiple collection technologies that contribute to collection efficiencies. The description of BWI operations in the TDD acknowledges that CDPs are “coupled with” other collection technologies; 272 the Site Visit Report on PIT establishes that GRVs are used in combination with deicing pads; 273 and the Sampling Episode Reports for DTW establishes that “[d]eicing fluid collection is augmented in and around the remote deicing pads using GRVs.”274 With respect to DIA, EPA’s Site Visit Report (Document - 0513)275 establishes that DIA has supplemented the collection of ADF at its pads with a massive “fugitive collection system which included stormwater collection fr om a larger area of the concourse and parts of the winter departure runways.” (See the outlined area in the upper left corner of Figure 1 [reproduced below]).276 DIA also has another large collection system known as the “West Airfield Diversion System” and has “connected several utility corridors to a diversion system that feeds to the DIA stormwater system.”277 FOOTNOTE:277 CDM, Denver International Airport

– Stormwater Management Plan (August 2004) at 2 - 11.] In addition, it also is not clear from the data and analysis, how collection efficiencies are calculated

– for example, whether BOD or COD collected is attributed in calculations to ADF or to other potential sources of oxygen demand as well (for example, pavement deicers or other organics).278 [FOOTNOT E:278 Relying on information from European airports, as EPA did in the TDD, is problematic, especially since deicing operations at European airports run on a completely different model than do operations at U.S. airports. Moreover, Oslo

– one of the two Eu ropean airports EPA cites -- was built virtually from scratch during the mid - 1990s, allowing it to avoid the many difficulties encountered when attempting to engineer collection and treatment systems within the constraints of the existing facilities EPA pro poses to regulate here.] Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 93.78 BAT_60 - 60% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 29 (AAAE) The EPA recommends that those who fall into the categ ory of requiring 60 percent collection install a deicing pad to demonstrate compliance. However, the EPA has failed to demonstrate that 60 percent collection is either economically or technically achievable at all airports, either through use of deicing pa ds or any other technology. See proposed 40 C.F.R. § 449.20(b)(2). The EPA provides suggested technical specifications designed to meet certain capture efficiencies. See proposed 40 C.F.R. § 449.20(b)(1)(ii). Yet, deicing pads and related infrastructure pr ojects must meet Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design and construction criteria which requires obstacles to stay out of runway movement areas. When planning for any landside project, such additions should not interfere with vehicle maneuvering area s, vehicle safety zones and need to be able to take into account aircraft movement and parking areas. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 92 and 93. EPA is basing the NSPS collection requirement in the final rule on CDP. EPA has data documenting that numerous existing airports have chosen to incorporate centralized deicing pads for ADF contaminated stormwater collection. The costs in employing CDP, compared to the overall costs of constructing a new airport , does not present a “barrier to entry” for new airports to incorporate this technology. EPA’s analysis of centralized deicing pads as BADCT is explained in the preamble to the final rule. BAT_60 - 60% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 45 (PA NY&NJ) Sizing for peak hour departure rate. The Proposed Rule would require that the “deicing facilities shall be sized to accommodate the airport’s peak hourly departure rate.”93 The proposed language includes no refe rence to winter conditions. To meet the requirement as written, JFK would have to size its deicing facilities to accommodate the 60 or more hourly departures that occur during normal weather conditions, rather than the 28 or so hourly departures that occur during winter storm conditions. Similarly, LGA would have to size its facilities to accommodate 44 or more hourly departures (rather than 28 - 29), and EWR would have to size its facilities to accommodate 47 or more hourly departures (rather than 24). It is difficult to refute this design requirement as unnecessary, because the Proposed Rule would also require that the pads be used for all deicing (beyond the “safe taxiing” exception). Theoretically, deicing of some kind might be needed for all of the hourly aircraft departures under a full schedule. This scenario is unlikely, but the Port Authority does not have access to detailed airline data on the number of aircraft deiced under various weather and schedule scenarios.94 As a result, under the Proposed Rul e, the Port Authority would have to design and construct deicing facilities to accommodate many more aircraft than likely would use the facilities. The ability for the airlines to share the costs of the construction of the pads is not likely at this time. Response: EPA no longer has these technical specifications in the regulations. See the comment response to EPA HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 92. Also, the final NSPS does not include a requirement to size a centralized deicing pad to accomm odate the airport’s peak hourly departure rate.79 BAT_60 - 60% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 2 (PA DEP) The proposed ELG will only require fourteen airports nationwide to achieve a level of collection that has been demons trated at several airports as a readily available and proven technology. In addition, the proposed ELG will potentially allow an unaccounted number of airports to collect less than they currently collect. The proposed ELG will not eliminate impacts to most receiving streams and may actually increase the amount of ADF discharged untreated. The demonstrated 60% collection level should be applied to all facilities that discharge deicing chemical impacted wastewater to waters of the United States. Response: S ee the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1223.1, Comment Excerpt 5. EPA explained the basis for its option selection in the preamble to the final rule. Because aircraft deicing discharge controls will continue to be established in a site by site BP J basis, the final rule will not result in increased ADF discharges. EPA recognizes that a technology - based BPJ limit that should be employed may not always be sufficient to eliminate impacts to receiving streams. Under the CWA, section 301(b)(1)(C) and the regulations for NPDES permitting would require the permitting authority to establish more stringent limitations where necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. BAT_60 - 60% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 44 (ACI - NA) Deicing Pads Cannot Meet a 60 Percent Collection Standard Representing BAT. For airports using 460,000 gallons or more of normalized ADF annually, EPA has identified centralized deicing pads as BAT for collecting 60 percent of available ADF. The proposed requirements are problematic for a number of reasons. Overall, EPA has failed to demonstrate that 60 percent collection is either economically or technically achievable at all airports, either through use of deicing pads or any other technolo gy. At many of the airports potentially subject to 60 percent collection requirements, the installation of deicing pads is impossible and at others it may only be possible through significant operational and financial burden. EPA must address these serious practical and economic limitations associated with the proposed deicing pad mandates. Response: See response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1, Comment Excerpt 29 and the preamble to the final rule. BAT_60 - 60% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 45 EPA Fails to Justify its Conclusion that Deicing Pads Represent BAT and Meet a 60 Percent Collection Standard. EPA assumes that collection efficiency is a function of how effectively the system is operated (EPA “estimates th at facilities effectively operating a centralized deicing pad recover 60 percent of applied glycol.”45 (emphasis added)). While in theory or in tightly controlled conditions that may be true, a number of factors beyond operational effectiveness influence t he collection efficiency of a deicing pad system. Among these, one of the most important factors is weather, which is beyond the control of even the most effective deicing pad operator. While deicing pads can be designed to meet specific collection80 require ments, their ultimate collection efficiency is greatly impacted by weather. EPA also provides no further guidance or definition as to what qualifies as “effectively operating.” If EPA intends that the technical specifications set forth in 449.20(b)(1)(ii) constitute EPA’s perceived definition of “effectively operating,” then the Agency must provide additional explanation and support the basis for those specifications before finalizing the standard. We cannot identify any justification for a conclusion that airports relying solely on those specifications will collect 60 percent or more of available ADF and achieve full compliance with the proposed standard. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 92 and 93. BAT_60 - 60% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 46 Not All Airports Can Implement Deicing Pads, and EPA Has Not Identified an Alternative Technology to Achieve the Standard. EPA is obligated to identify a model technology that will ach ieve the standards that it promulgates. Target facilities are not obligated to use that technology to comply with the standard if other technologies exist. In the Proposed Rule, EPA identified deicing pads as its model technology, but not all airports can reconfigure their sites to adopt the deicing pad technology while meeting operational and safety requirements. In addition, EPA has not identified any other technology that meets the 60 percent standard. Hence, airports that cannot build pads are facing si gnificant compliance and liability issues. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 92 and 93. BAT_60 - 60% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 51 EPA’s Proposed Deicing Pad Specificati ons Are Unrealistic. The Proposed Rule provides technical specifications permitting authorities could force on airports to demonstrate compliance with the 60 percent collection standard. The proposed specifications are unrealistic and fail to account for F AA’s existing deicing pad design guidance. EPA has not provided information to demonstrate that (1) these specifications are being met by any airport currently relying on deicing pads to collect spent ADF, (2) these specifications are achievable at any air port proposed to meet 60 percent collection requirements, or (3) that meeting these specifications will ensure collection of 60 percent of available ADF. Unless EPA can demonstrate that an airport will comply with the proposed ELG through forced implementa tion of the section 449.20(b)(1) specifications, the Agency should not prescribe such a mandate. Further, EPA cannot prescribe a single compliance technology through the ELG program, either on its face or in practice (through the lack of alternatives). Thi s issue is addressed further in section II.J.2 on Permit Writer Discretion. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 92 and 93. EPA's NSPS permit requirements also include an alternative demonstration for new airpo rts that chose not to use CDPs.81 BAT_60 - 60% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 52 (1) EPA Has Not Clearly Defined “Centralized Deicing Pad.” EPA has proposed that an airport can demonstrate compliance with the 60 percent col lection requirements by operating a “centralized deicing pad” in accordance with technical specifications set forth in section 449.20(b)(1)(ii). However, EPA has not made clear whether only centralized deicing facilities would meet the proposed requirement s. FAA has established standards, specifications, and guidance for designing aircraft deicing facilities: Advisory Circular 150/5300 - 14B. In the AC, FAA specifically defines a centralized deicing pad as “an aircraft deicing facility located at the terminal gates/aprons or along taxiways serving departure runways.”48 Separately, FAA defines a remote deicing facility as “an aircraft deicing facility located along taxiways serving departure runways or near the departure end of runways.”49 Because EPA is settin g a legal standard through the proposed ELG, we must take EPA’s use of “terms of art” (i.e., “centralized deicing pad”) to mean that EPA is prescribing only centralized deicing pads as FAA and the industry understand that term to mean. While centralized pa ds can necessitate increased use of Type IV fluids to maintain holdover times, Type IV fluid is generally uncollectable and may increase the load generated in "non deicing" areas. Conversely, building remote pads large enough to service full departure ban ks at each end of all possible winter departure runways at an airport would be grossly expensive. Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, for example, utilizes three types of pads: remote - threshold departure (most efficient); centralized - departure f rom each end (less efficient); and remote - opposite end departure (the most difficult, but the only way to use all four of the airport’s pads simultaneously during bad weather). Therefore, in order to best accommodate their deicing and operational needs, airports may rely on a combination of centralized and remote deicing pads. While EPA considers DTW to meet BAT and the Agency has relied on DTW to determine pad costs elsewhere, EPA has not fully considered or costed centralized deicing pads versus remote deicing pads or any combination thereof. If EPA is proposing alternative systems, then it must modify the proposal and explain that issue. EPA must use nomenclature to be consistent with FAA’s and industry standards. Response: "Centralized deicing pad" (C DP) means a facility on an airfield designed for aircraft deicing operations, constructed with a drainage system separate from (or that can be separated from) the airport main storm drain system. The separate drainage system is connected to a wastewater st orage facility. By this definition, both the "centralized and remote deicing pads" referred by the commenter would be considered CDP technology. See also the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 51. BAT_60 - 60% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 58 There is no explanation regarding the deicing pad size specifications set forth in the Proposed Rule, a reasonable comparison of EPA’s analyses to FAA’s or real world deicing pad planning, and the ne cessary justification that demonstrates that any such proposal will in all instances achieve 60 percent collection. Response: See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 51.82 BAT_60 - 60% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 68 Alternative Technologies May Not Allow 60 Percent Collection. EPA has identified centralized deicing pads as the best available technology economically achievable for collecting 60 percent of available ADF. As discussed above, w e contest EPA’s conclusion that deicing pads can consistently achieve 60 percent collection. Further, we dispute EPA’s conclusion that deicing pads are “available” at all airports. Finally, EPA has not shown that deployment of either another technology or deicing pads using different technical specifications will allow an airport to achieve 60 percent collection. In section 449.20(b)(2), EPA proposes to allow the use of a different ADF collection technology in lieu of deicing pads. We appreciate EPA’s inten tion to accommodate the varying needs and abilities of airports by allowing alternative methods of compliance. For a wide variety of reasons, deicing pads may not be a viable ADF collection technology at many airports. Most notably, space constraints and o perational impacts often prevent or limit an airport’s ability to rely on deicing pads. However, for those airports unable to rely on deicing pads, EPA has not provided any alternative technology that it asserts would be capable of achieving the required 6 0 percent collection efficiency. Because, as previously discussed, deicing pads are not available at all airports subject to the 60 percent collection requirement and no alternative technology has been shown to allow an airport to achieve 60 percent collec tion, EPA has not shown that the 60 percent collection requirement is achievable at all airports that will be subject to the requirement. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 92 and 93. BAT_60 - 60% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 3 (SLC Airport) The number of gallons of glycol sprayed annually at SLC, compared to the number of gallons of glycol recycled at the glycol recovery plant, indicates that SLC presently recovers approx imately 20% of the applied ADF. It is important to note that the percentage of ADF that is not collected is not necessarily discharged to surface waters. A significant percentage of deicer used at SLC is lost to high evaporation rates due to our semi - arid climate, pavement absorption, wind drift, tracking, and chemical degradation. Moreover, a portion adheres to the plane and then sheers during take - off. Again these factors will vary from airport to airport and further illustrate the flaws in EPA's assumpti on that all large airports can and should collect 60% of the glycol used. It is not possible for SLC to meet the proposed 60% collection requirement with the current glycol collection and conveyance system. New end of runway deicing pads are being construc ted at SLC with a capital cost of over 181,000,000. These pads will be state - of - the - art facilities designed to collect an optimal percentage of ADF. However, due to a variety of site - specific conditions, it is unlikely that even these new pads will achieve EPA's proposed 60% collection requirement Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 92 and 93 also, see the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1223.1, Comment Excerpt 5. Also, EPA revised its new source defi nition. New runways and existing airports are no longer considered new sources. See the preamble for additional discussion on this definition.83 BAT_60 - 60% BAT is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 5 The Proposed Rule assumes that airports with centralized deicing pads will achieve a 60% collection rate of available ADF. Yet the ADF collection rate at SLC is currently 20% using both deicing pads and GRVs. The centralized deicing pad collection data that EPA relied on from a few airp orts does not represent the varied number of airports that use this technology. EPA has identified centralized deicing pads as BAT for collecting 60% of available ADF; however, they have failed to demonstrate that a 60% ADF collection rate is achievable. T he EPA is incorrect to assume that the use of deicing pads equates to 60% ADF collection capacity. EPA has failed to identify a technology that will achieve the standards in the Proposed Rule at SLC or many other large airports. Response: SLC's reported 2 0 percent recovery is of applied ADF, not available ADF; the proposed regulations reference available ADF. See comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1, Comment Excerpt 3. BAT_AMM - BAT limitation for ammonia is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1210.1 - 9 The proposed BAT constitutes a biased standard, whereby the AFB BAT for airplane deicing fluids needs only meet a COD limit while discharging ammonia, but the pavement deicing BAT, without any explanation, justification, or r ational distinction, must either eliminate urea as an ammonia source or meet an ammonia discharge limit that is, by EPA’s own admission, prohibitive and burdensome. TFI requests that EPA, in cooperation with interested stakeholders, establish technically a nd economically feasible numeric limits on ammonia concentrations from pavement runoff for those facilities which have made the determination under the MSGP that urea represent the safest, most cost - effective, and most environmentally safe option for compl ying with FAA deicing requirements. In the alternative, EPA should justify the different BAT requirements for airplane deicing and pavement deicing to ensure that the proposed BAT does not constitute an arbitrary distinction. Response: In general, airport s discharge airfield pavement deicing chemicals without treatment due to the difficulty and expense required in collecting and treating the large volumes of contaminated stormwater generated on paved airfield surfaces. EPA is not aware of an available, ec onomically achievable means for controlling these pollutants through collection and use of a conventional, end - of - pipe treatment system. It is possible, however, to reduce or eliminate certain pollutants by modifying deicing practices, such as using alter native chemical deicing products. EPA disagrees that it did not appropriately evaluate and explain the basis for the BAT - based requirements in the rule for airfield deicing discharges. See sections VII.B.3.c., VII.D.3.c. and VII.E.3. in the proposed rule preamble, and sections IV.D.4., V.B.2 and V.B.4. in the final rule preamble. As explained there, EPA found product substitution from urea - based deicers to non - urea based deicers to be safe, technologically feasible, available, and economically achievabl e for the airport deicing industry as a whole. This is the BAT requirement EPA establishes in the final rule. EPA disagrees that it found this requirement to be prohibitive and burdensome. As the commenter suggests, the final rule does establish ammonia discharge limitations as a compliance alternative for pavement deicing. Ammonia naturally occurs at airports as a result of local wildlife; therefore, EPA determined it would not be appropriate to set this limitation at the non - detect level. Moreover, depe nding on a specific airports' drainage system, a portion of airfield runoff may be routed to84 the treatment system utilized in treating aircraft deicers. Given that the anaerobic biological treatment system that forms the basis of the COD limitations for NS PS will produce ammonia discharges above non - detect values, EPA used the ammonia effluent discharge data from this treatment technology to establish the final rule ammonia compliance alternative. These ammonia as nitrogen standards represent treated deicin g stormwater effluents from airports that do not use urea - based deicing chemicals and are lower than typical ammonia as nitrogen concentrations in airfield stormwater from airports that do use urea deicers. EPA disagrees that there was an inconsistency in the proposed rule for how EPA established BAT - based requirements for airplane deicing versus pavement deicing, but regardless, the final rule does not set uniform requirements for collection or treatment of spent ADF at existing airports. BAT_AMM - BAT lim itation for ammonia is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 112 EPA’s Derivation of BAT Limitations for Ammonia Is Not Supported by the Record. Derivation of the proposed ammonia limitation

– which applies to runoff from all outfalls at an airport, including runways

– is based on performance of AFBR. Unlike the proposed COD limitation for ADF - impacted runoff which is based on a relatively robust data set (albeit from only a single installation), the ammonia limitation is based on only five data points. Moreover, this data set does not include any data points representative of start - up conditions,311 even though EPA acknowledges that the evaluation of start - up data is necessary to properly characterize treatment performance in this indus try.312 FOOTNOTE:311 Notice at 44,700 (“In contrast to the COD limitations, which are based on a mixture of start - up and steady state periods, the ammonia limitation is based upon data collected only during steady state operations. EPA requests additional data that reflect ammonia discharges during start - up operations.”)] [FOOTNOTE:312 Notice at 44,697 (“Because start - up conditions reflect onetime operating conditions, EPA generally excludes such data in developing the limitations. In contrast, EPA expects airports to encounter start - up operations at the start of every deicing season because they probably will cease treatment operations during warmer months. Because this adjustment period will occur every year for the Airport Deicing Category, EPA is proposi ng to include start - up data in the data set used as the basis of the limitations.”)] For these reasons, the proposed ammonia effluent limitations are not demonstrably achievable. This flaw is fatal whether they are denominated BAT limitations (in which cas e they do not meet the statutory standard) or are considered to be a non - BAT compliance alternative (in which case they are not supported by a competent record and are arbitrary and capricious under the APA). Response: Product substitution is the basis fo r today’s effluent limitation regarding airfield deicing chemicals. EPA also established ammonia discharge limitations as a compliance alternative. Ammonia naturally occurs in airport discharges as a result of excretions from wildlife that enter the storm water; therefore, EPA determined it would not be appropriate to set this limitation at the non - detect level. Moreover, depending on a specific airports' drainage system, a portion of airfield deicing stormwater may be routed to the treatment system utilize d in treating the collected ADF. Further, the AFB that has been identified as the basis for the NSPS requirement for treating collected ADF will itself produce ammonia discharges as a byproduct of treatment. Therefore, where airfield deicing stormwater t hat is free of urea contamination is routed through the AFB treatment system, the discharge after treatment may have ammonia concentrations higher than the non - detect level (see DCN AD00842). Consequently, EPA used ammonia effluent discharge data from the same AFB system it used to establish NSPS discharge requirements for ADF, located at Albany, to establish today’s ammonia compliance alternative. This ensures that the ammonia limit in the final rule can be met even where the commingled discharge contains ammonia from the AFB treatment of stormwater containing aircraft deicers, or from animal excretions. Had limits been85 established based only on airfield discharges where non - urea - containing deicers were used, the numeric limit would likely be lower. Additionally, the above referenced text about including start up data is in reference to the COD limit, which is intended to keep the numeric limit from being too low, and inclusion of start - up data would elevate the final numeric limit, thus setting a mor e conservative final numeric limit. While the AFB system creates ammonia as a byproduct of treating ADF, an AFB in startup conditions , would be treating glycol less efficiently, and therefore producing ammonia at a reduced rate. As such, the ammonia concen trations during start - up exiting an AFB would be less than those resulting from an AFB that has reached steady state. Including reduced ammonia values associated with AFB startup conditions would be counterproductive to the goal of using the conservativel y high AFB ammonia effluent data for setting numeric limitations for ammonia in the runoff from airfield deicing. Five ammonia concentration values available from Albany met the limitations criteria described above. The five ammonia values were collected by EPA during its sampling episode (February 5 through February 9, 2006). The commenter questions basing the ammonia limitation on only five data points. In developing the final NSPS, EPA used all of the technically appropriate data that it could accumu late for the technology bases. Furthermore, EPA notes that the model facility does not collect such data on ammonia so longer term data is not available. Where industry provided usable data for the selected technology basis, EPA used that data. Given th at EPA has limited data with which to set the limitations and standards, EPA’s approach is reasonable. Furthermore, unlike claims by many commenters, the use of a single facility to establish limitations and standards is legal and EPA has historically set limitations and standards using data from a single facility. Moreover, Congress intended the Clean Water Act to be a technology - forcing statute. See NRDC v. EPA, 822 F.2d 104, 123 - 24 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“[T]he most salient characteristic of this statutory scheme, articulated time and again by its architects and embedded in the statutory language, is that it is technology - forcing....This policy is expressed as a statut ory mandate, not simply as a goal.”) (citations omitted). In establishing NSPS for ammonia based on 5 data points from a single facility, EPA is carrying out its mandate by using all the data available to it. Courts have recognized that the use of a small number of data points to establish limitations and standards is justified under the Act. See, e.g., BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Costle, 598 F.2d 637, 652 - 653, (1 st Circuit, 1979) (to carry out its mandate, EPA need not await perfect information, but must mak e use of the information it has) where the Court stated that: Given this admitted information shortage EPA must make use of the information it has, recognizing the limits of the information; EPA cannot refuse to carry out its mandate, waiting for the day w hen it might possess perfect information...The same answer applies to petitioners’ claim that the data...were too sparse to support any conclusion about their effectiveness...EPA used all the data it could accumulate. EPA used all the data it could accumu late. Had the industry come forward with more data there is every indication that EPA would have used it...It was up to EPA to decide whether the limited data base was sufficient to support the conclusions reached. We hold that deciding to base conclusio ns on the limited data available was a reasonable exercise of discretion given the regulatory mandate. This commenter also expressed concern that AFB treatment technology has not been proven in a variety of applications across a broad range of influent CO D concentrations. EPA disagrees. AFB technology has a proven history of successful use in a wide variety of industrial applications and concentration ranges. The major difference as stated by this same commenter is that manufacturers operate in a more “ controlled” environment (i.e., one not affected by external factors such as weather). As demonstrated by the model facility (and recent applications of AFB technology at other airports), this technology is proven effective in the less “controlled” airport environment for reducing pollutants in aircraft deicing86 discharges. Further, as explained in the response to 1232.1 #51, equalization is a critical component of the design of AFB systems for airports. New airports can design their systems accordingly. BAT_AMM - BAT limitation for ammonia is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 166 EPA Impermissibly Establishes an Effluent Limitation for Ammonia - N The limit on ammonia as nitrogen is not the BAT for airfield pavement deicing. Rather, the identified BAT is substitution of urea as a pavement deicer. [F]or airfield pavement deicers, EPA is proposing to identify a BAT of discontinuing use of urea - based pavement deicers in favor of alternative, less toxic products that are not harmful to ai rcraft. Thus, BAT would be based on product substitution rather than treatment of the wastestream that runs off of airfield pavements.458 EPA asserts in the Notice that the Ammonia - N limit is intended to facilitate the “compliance alternative” of continued use of urea. While EPA is proposing to identify product substitution as BAT, in order to allow flexibility to regulated facilities, the Agency is also proposing a compliance alternative to the certification requirement. This provision would accommodate fa cilities that might wish to continue using urea - based deicers and install treatment to eliminate urea based ammonia discharges instead.459 Proposed §449.10(d) is styled as establishing a “compliance alternative for airfield BAT requirements,” allowing airp orts at which (all) “airfield pavement discharges” meet the Ammonia - N limit to be deemed to meet the urea ban. The TDD reflects anything but an intent to provide “flexibility:” Ammonia as N is proposed for regulation to ensure that airports cease using ure a as an airfield deicer, since other less toxic products are available. 460 ... Facilities that elect to comply using the compliance alternative would be required to monitor and comply with a proposed ammonia limit. To establish the proposed compliance alt ernative limitation for ammonia, the Agency had to take into account the ammonia that is a by - product of an AFB wastewater treatment system. This is because AFB discharges could have higher ammonia concentrations than that of background levels found in air field runoff. While this results in a proposed compliance alternative ammonia effluent limit higher than concentrations in airfield runoff where AFB technologies are not used, the Agency estimates that these concentrations are lower than those from airfiel d pavement discharges where urea - based deicers are used. 461 Thus, Ammonia - as - Nitrogen has nothing to do with BAT. Indeed, EPA has affirmed that it has not done analysis to determine the costs, load reductions, or other items associated with following the “compliance alternative”

– i.e., electing to continue use of urea, but meeting the Ammonia - as - N effluent limit. What information is provided in the Record EPA says indicates that as practical matter it is impossible to demonstrate compliance with the Ammo nia - N standard with respect to pavement runoff only462 and that “the costs associated with capturing and treating these wastestreams would be prohibitively high.”463 Response: EPA is promulgating a compliance alternative to discontinuing the use of urea by establishing a daily maximum limitation for airports that use urea - based deicers on the runways. However, because of the higher costs of collecting and treating to meet this limitation, EPA anticipates that all or most airports will select product subst itution (i.e., use of non - urea deicers) instead. See response to comment EPA - HQ OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1210.1, Comment Excerpt 9 for a discussion on BAT selection for pavement deicing. The final rules for existing and new airports require permittees to achieve no d ischarge of airfield pavement deicers containing urea. The basis for these rules is EPA’s identification of product substitution of non - urea deicers as BAT for controlling airfield deicing runoff (or BADCT for new sources). The record shows that it is ec onomically achievable to demonstrate compliance with the “no discharge” requirement by certifying that the facility does not use urea deicers. However, it is also within EPA’s discretion to establish an alternative means for showing compliance with the “n o discharge” limitation. See CWA Sections 308(a), 402(a), and 501(a). Here, including this alternative method for showing87 compliance is reasonable, without the need to show its affordability, since it’s use is optional, and there is already another metho d of demonstrating compliance (certification of no urea deicers) that EPA has shown to be economically achievable. BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208 - 13 This same concern also exists with equipment availability (i.e. GRVs) and the ability to meet demand in order to comply with the overall ELGs. Response: The final rule does not require collection and treatment of ADF at existing airports based on GRVs. BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1221.1 - 5 There are still considerable technological hurdles for treatment of ADF that is able to be collected. Let's assume a small quantity of ADF is able to be collected. The liquid would be required to be stored (in a heated tank d ue to the freezing temperatures) and shipped to the lower - 48 for treatment at an as - of - yet undetermined treatment facility or would be required to be treated locally, as stated in the proposed rule. An AFB system is not designed to treat such an insignific ant amount of water. The ADF laden - water would need to be stored in tanks until there was a significant amount of fluid available to push through the treatment system. At that time, a technician would have to be flown into BET, as it is unlikely that local employees would be trained and knowledgeable enough to operate a system that is only operated on a sporadic basis. The system would then be required to be "primed," operated for a limited time to reduce the COD in the collected stormwater, and then shut d own again until enough fluid is collected. As an additional concern, if contaminated stormwater is stored for an extended period of time, it will begin to degrade, making the influent more difficult to handle via an AFB treatment system. In short, the syst em as currently described does not work from an engineering perspective, even before considering the costs of such a system. Due to the extremely high cost and impracticality of implementing an ADF treatment system in arctic Alaska, it is likely that these facilities would instead opt to collect and store the deicing contaminated stormwater and transport it to a treatment facility in Anchorage or somewhere in the lower 48 States. At this time there is no candidate facility for this type of treatment. This p ossibility has not been reviewed by the EPA from a cost perspective, however; the cost of building a storage facility and shipping the materials via barge are expected to be prohibitive. Response: The current ADF collection/treatment requirement is design ed so that only new airports expected to have significant amount of deicing (and therefore significant amount of collected ADF) will be required to collect and treat the spent ADF to a numeric limit. This change in applicability should ensure that a new s ource that requires collection and treatment should have sufficient material to support a biological treatment system. BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 95 We take issue with EPA’s use of Google Earth as a tool for determining land availability for CDPs at airports. Specifically, EPA conducted the Land Availability Analysis by taking overhead images from88 Google Earth and drawing boxes on them to approximate potential deicing pads. This method for determining land ava ilability is completely inaccurate and not suitable for even a rough approximation of land availability. A review of the Google Earth images in the Land Availability Analysis demonstrates that the proposed deicing pad locations are unrealistic as they cove r parking lots, maintenance hangars, and large aircraft movement areas. As the subsequent subsections lay out, EPA’s analysis also fails to take safety or operational considerations into account

– Google Earth certainly does not capture these dimensions. A t a minimum, a suitable analysis to determine the availability of open land would involve a detailed review of airport site plans including identification of existing structures, planned capital improvements, and utilities. Such an analysis would only be a first step toward determining if the space were suitable for a deicing pad. EPA has failed to make even the most basic analysis of available land. Response: The final rule does not require collection and treatment of ADF at existing airports. In the cas e of new airports, the airports can be designed to contain the technologies necessary to meet the NSPS. BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 96 EPA’s Determination that CDPs Are “Available” Does Not Consider Operation al Factors The Land Availability Analysis does consider or analyze operational issues associated with CDPs.282 [FOOTNOTE:282 Even EPA’s conceptualization of a “centralized deicing pad” does not track FAA’s distinction in AC 150/5300 - 14B, between “centraliz ed deicing pads” and “remote deicing pads.” Compare 1 - 1(b)(1) and 1 - 1(b)(2); compare also 1 - 2(b), which defines a “centralized deicing facility” as “an aircraft deicing facility located at the terminal gates/aprons or along taxiways serving departure runw ays,” and 1 - 2(c), which defines a “remote deicing facility” as “an aircraft deicing facility located along taxiways serving departure runways or near the departure end of runways.” The failure to understand this distinction leads to a failure to inquire in to or understand the operational advantages and challenges associated with each.] EPA observes that FAA recommends that “before locating deicing facilities away from the terminal areas, an airport should first evaluate the use of existing taxiways that min imize the taxiing time to the facility and, more important, the subsequent taxiing time remaining between treatment and takeoff.”283 While EPA is right to identify minimization of taxiing time as an important consideration in location of remote deicing fac ilities, the strategy proposed by EPA will extend, rather than minimize, taxiing times.284 [FOOTNOTE:284 While reducing taxiing times after deicing is generally beneficial, construction of remote deicing pads in the vicinity of runway departure ends often is not viable from both a safety and operational perspective. At a minimum, if a facility were approved for construction, there would be both runway/taxiway closures and navigational aid outages and associated impacts to consider.] EPA uses Google Earth to outline potential deicing pad locations at LGA, DCA and JFK that would incorporate existing taxiways.285 Indeed, the Google Earth image of LGA captures two aircraft on active taxiways in the middle of one proposed deicing pad site. In addition to the fact that Google Earth is not an adequate tool for determining land availability or locating deicing pads, the incorporation of taxiways into a deicing pad would drastically disrupt and delay operations at an airport. In fact, in 2 - 1(b)(2) of AC 150/5300 - 14B, FAA lists “bypass taxiing capability” as an essential component of any remote deicing facility and explains in 2 - 8: To further maximize departure flows for all departing aircraft, potential sites should have enough physical space to allow bypass taxiing ca pability for aircraft not needing treatment. This feature permits the facility to receive aircraft to continue unimpeded for departure. Response: For the reasons expressed in the preamble, the final rule does not require collection and treatment of ADF a t existing airports.89 BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 97 EPA notes that “[a]ll of the [proposed pad] locations are plotted adjacent to existing runways to illustrate space availabilities in areas that would possibly ensure deicing holding times [sic] could be achieved.” 286 Unfortunately, the proposed pads appear to be located so close to existing runways that they violate various safety standards and, were they in fact located as proposed, could require runways to be closed while aircraft were deiced.287 [FOOTNOTE:287 See AC 150 - 5300 - 13 and FAR Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace.] Again, this would wreak havoc on airport operations, resulting in huge increase in delays at the airports in question and through out the NAS. The view that EPA has taken does not consider the various operational configurations that an airport may utilize, or even which runways are most often available for departures and arrivals during winter operations. An airspace analysis, runway safety review to evaluate runway crossings, air traffic operational analysis, and ground access analysis must all be performed to evaluate whether any location is viable from both a safety and operational perspective. All have the potential to eliminate a ny proposed site from consideration.288 [FOOTNOTE:288 We also note that this analysis does not even take into consideration operational requirements built into EPA’s own understanding of how CDPs may qualify as BAT. EPA proposes to require that any central ized deicing pad deemed to comply with BAT must be used by all aircraft deiced at an airport and must be “sized to accommodate the airport’s peak hourly departure rate.” Proposed §449.20(b)(1)(ii)(A) & (D). Yet, the analysis in EPA - HQ - OW - 2003 - 0038 - 1171 is devoid of any consideration of whether all winter operations could be served at these airports without increasing delays and, as a result, throughout the NAS. In addition, there is no attempt to determine the peak hourly departure rates at these airports a nd whether the proposed pads could accommodate those rates.] Response: For the reasons expressed in the preamble, the final rule does not require collection and treatment at existing airports. BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 98 We also note that EPA’s analysis fails to consider key variables in determining the number of deicing pads needed at an airport: the size, type and frequency of storm events experienced at specific airports. Again, the AC cl early spells out the need for critical information: Variations in meteorological conditions, e.g., type of precipitation, increase the extent (and frequency) of the deicing/anti - icing treatment. Airports that commonly experience heavy wet snows or freezing rain should increase the number of deicing pads to maintain departure flow rates at levels that avoid unacceptable delays for subsequent aircraft awaiting treatment.289 Yet, based on data from PIT, DTW and DIA, EPA concludes that a typical airport needs j ust 86% of a deicing pad per runway and the pad must be 9.5 square feet per annual departure. As a result, based on the derivation of this metric (which is not consistent with a metric EPA derived for estimating pad sizes in another analysis in this rulema king),290 EPA assumes away the need for climate information the AC deems necessary for determining the number of pads needed (and in some cases their location). Similarly, EPA assumes away the need to consider other categories of information identified by FAA as necessary to the analysis, including procedures and methods of users, the type of aircraft receiving treatment (fleet mix) and types of deicing vehicles operated at the airport. Response: For the reasons expressed in the preamble, the final rule d oes not require collection and treatment at existing airports.90 BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 99 EPA developed “relationships” between deicing pad areas and the annual number of airport departures based on three e xisting facilities (PIT, DIA, and DTW). Establishing pad size and location with no reference to FAA airport design standards, or airport and airway obstruction standards is unacceptable. Compliance with FAA airport design standards is mandatory for both sa fety and financial reasons. Because each airport is unique, FAA recommends airports solicit input from FAA Air Traffic Control, Airports Division, Technical Operations and Flight Standards offices; Airport operations managers, environmental managers, and a irport rescue and fire fighting representatives; airline station, environmental and operation managers; and a variety of other aviation related parties. None of this was done for the EPA determination of deicing pad space availability at LGA, DCA & JFK. In deed, the basic premise that remote deicing facilities located near departure runway ends (as opposed to “centralized deicing pads” as understood by FAA and the aviation community) are recommended only when taxi times frequently exceed holdover times was n ever even considered. Response: For the reasons expressed in the preamble, the final rule does not require collection and treatment at existing airports. BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 100 EPA’s Determination tha t CDPs Are “Available” Does Not Consider Other Essential Design Criteria As noted above, the Agency does not consider whether there is land available to accommodate the storage and treatment facilities that would be required and without which the collectio n BAT would be useless. Some images of storage and treatment facilities from the Record (many of which EPA staff observed in person during site visits) make plain that whether land - constrained airports would have space available to accommodate such facilit ies is a very significant issue: Storage Tanks at CAK (from Document - 0834 ) Storage Tank (2.5 Million Gallons) at ALB (from Document - 0206) Storage Lagoon (6.0 Million Gallons) at ALB (from Document - 0206) Primary and Secondary Treatment Facilities at ALB (from Document - 0206) Moreover, the ALB and CAK systems are relatively small

– systems at the large airports targeted under this rule would need to be much larger. As noted above, the AFBR alone are at least 10 feet in diameter and 35 feet in height. The buildings enclosing the reactors and/or attendant equipment add to the footprint. Response: For the reasons expressed in the preamble, the final rule does not require collection and treatment at existing airports.91 BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 101 The capacity of AFBR facilities for large airports would need to be much larger than those at ALB and CAK to accommodate the much larger COD loads associated with the higher ADF usage at those airports. A rudimentary analysis suggests that, based on EPA’s estimated COD loads at these airports, LGA would require three AFBR, EWR six, and BOS five. The buildings needed to enclose the reactors and attendant facilities (e.g., pre - heater, composite sampler, feed flow control valves, fluidization and foam flow con trol pumps, media separator, pH control, nutrient batch mixer, system control and data acquisition panel, biogas collector, dual methane gas boiler, process heat recycle loop, oxygenator, biogas flare, etc.) will also need to be much bigger than those requ ired at CAK and/or ALB. Response: For the reasons expressed in the preamble, the final rule does not require collection and treatment at existing airports. BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 102 In addition, the stor mwater collected to meet ADF Collection BAT would need to be much larger. These facilities also would have very large footprints.291 [FOOTNOTE:291 If it is assumed stormwater storage facilities would be constructed underground, the operational and other im pacts associated with construction of those facilities would need to be taken into account.] Response: For the reasons expressed in the preamble, the final rule does not require collection and treatment at existing airports. Based on the record and info rmation about the most recently constructed new airport in the past 25 years, Denver International, EPA expects that sponsoring agencies will be able to design new airports in a manner to comply with the NSPS. BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EP A - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 103 Clearly, before it may reasonably conclude that sufficient land is in fact available to deploy CDPs, EPA must consider whether land is available to accommodate the other facilities it is requiring to be deployed under the Pro posed Rule and without which deployment of CDPs would be useless. In addition, EPA also must consider whether space is available for other facilities that, especially given that under the proposal they would be designed to accommodate operations at our nat ion’s busiest but physically - constrained airports, must accompany CDPs, including, but not limited to: • Deicer center/tower (including operations control room and administrative offices); • Employee facilities for truck operators and supervisory staff, in cluding locker room, bathrooms, break room, and parking; • Snow storage and management space (for snow removed from CDPs); • Glycol storage, premixing and pre - heating, unloading and loading, facilities; • Fuel tanks and fueling stations for vehicles, inclu ding deicing trucks; • Vehicle/equipment storage and parking; • Vehicle/equipment maintenance; • Diversion structures (to allow diversion of high and low - strength stormwater flows); and • Pump stations.92 Response: For the reasons expressed in the preamble , the final rule does not require collection and treatment at existing airports. Additionally, most of the facilities listed in the comment are required as part of deicing, not collection, and would be at an airport regardless of the regulation requiremen ts. Furthermore, EPA expects that when building a new airport, the small amount of land required for deicing collection and ancillary activities (when compared to the total land required for an airport) will not be a barrier to entry. See DCN AD01284 for additional details on EPA's assessment of availability of land at a new airport. BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 104 EPA’s Determination that CDPs Are “Available” Is Not Consistent With Its Own Assessment that “Man y of the Nation’s Airports Simply Do Not Have” the “Physical Space” Available for Capacity Enhancement In closing, we note that EPA’s “land availability” analysis is not even consistent with its own clearly stated view that “many” airports are so physicall y constrained that they are unable to devote land to expanding capacity. Adding capacity requires physical space, which many of the nation’s airports simply do not have. Another barrier is that many airports are built near environmentally sensitive areas, such as waterways, that would make expansion costly and, in many cases, prohibited.292 If “many of the nation’s airports simply do not have” the physical space necessary to expand capacity, airports likely do not have physical space to devote to deicing pa ds and associated infrastructure. Moreover, as the Agency suggests, the environmental impacts associated with “finding land” to accommodate new facilities would, in effect, “prohibit” their construction (even taking into consideration their potential envir onmental benefits). In essence, EPA concedes that even if land is available in the theoretical sense, the costs for land constrained airports are effectively “prohibitive.” EPA also is not consistent in its analysis in that it did come up with a standard f or determining whether land/space is available for storage of ADF - runoff in retention ponds: “if an airport currently utilizes more than 35 percent of its current area for active airport operations, then it was not a candidate for a retention pond system.” 293 Nothing in the Record explains how this determination was made or supports its use. Response: For the reasons expressed in the preamble, the final rule does not require collection and treatment at existing airports. BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comm ent Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 107 EPA was arbitrary in their selection of AFBR technology as the model technology. Clearly, AFBR technology is a demonstrated effective means of treatment, however, it has only been applied to a select and narrow range of airport deicing conditions. Respons e: For the reasons expressed in the preamble, the final rule does not require collection and treatment at existing airports. However the AFBR system used as the basis for NSPS is a proven technology that is currently being used at several airports in the US, including Portland (PDX). AFBR is also used in other industrial categories for wastewater treatment. See ADO1262 for further explanation on industries where AFB is used.93 BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 163 EP A Fails to Determine “Availability” and “Economic Achievability” of Technologies Designated as BAT As set forth in detail elsewhere in these Comments, EPA’s determination that CDPs are “available” is arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, it has failed as a legal matter to make the statutorily required determination. More fundamentally, even if its determination of “availability” were grounded in defensible analysis, the determination is insufficient as a legal matter. EPA summarizes its conclusions regarding the availability of deicing pads as follows: Based on the limited data available, it appears LGA, DCA and JFK airports have sufficient space available near the ends of runways to install aircraft deicing pads. Although the actual deicing pad locations and configurations would likely vary from those presented in this memorandum, the analysis indicates that even space limited airports can install some combination of deicing pads as one option to help achieve the target capture and control percentages for spe nt ADF.454 This is not legally sufficient to support its determination that CDPs are “available” in the sense required to support a designation as BAT. First of all, BAT for ADF collection is articulated as a “bright line” standard: subject airports must c ollect 60% of available ADF455 subject airports are required to deploy technology that does achieve the standard. Secondly, EPA repeatedly states that CDPs

– operating without “help” of other technologies

– do achieve the BAT standard456 and deems CDPs ope rated “in accordance with ... technical specifications” set forth in proposed § 449.20(b)(1)(ii) as “sufficient to demonstrate compliance with a requirement to collect at least 60 percent of the available ADF.” In addition, in meetings with EPA, EPA offici als orally conformed that the record does not contain any analysis or attempt to establish that the 60% collection standard can be met through any means other than CDPs, specifically including use of pads in combination with other technologies.457 Finally, EPA’s methodology for estimating costs of compliance with the Proposed Rule clearly establishes that the Agency designated CDPs as the sole means used by large airports to meet the 60% collection requirement. In the context of this proposed Rule, the “ava ilability” of technology to meet BAT for ADF collection at large airports means the “availability” of CDPs. The self - identified lynchpin of its decision to designate CDPs as BAT for collection of ADF at large airports

– by its own terms

– establishes only that pads may be available to “help achieve” the BAT standard. Judged by its very own terms, EPA’s analysis is thus insufficient to fully its legal requirement to determine pads are available. EPA must determine economic achievability of rule for airlines as well as airports. In order to do this, it must properly (both methodologically and empirically) determine the cost of compliance with the Proposed Rule. In addition, EPA must separately establish the economic achievability of its proposed BAT for ADF an d PDF, and not attempt to justify one with pollutant removals attributable solely to the other. Response: For the reasons expressed in the preamble, the final rule does not require collection and treatment at existing airports. The preamble and TDD disc uss the reasons EPA found that the NSPS represent best available demonstrated control technology and no barrier to entry for new airports. EPA’s cost effectiveness analysis appropriately takes into account the total costs and total pollutant removals asso ciated with the regulation. This includes total costs and pollutant removals resulting from the discontinuation of urea use and the collection requirement.94 BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 49 Using one model airport to determine BAT is neither adequate nor justified. The idea that any technology can be chosen as BAT on the basis of one example is unsupportable, as one (or even two) example(s) cannot address the range of potential conditions and issues that could aris e from widespread application. Response: For the reasons expressed in the preamble, the final rule does not require collection and treatment at existing airports. The preamble and TDD discuss the reasons EPA found that the NSPS represent best available demonstrated control technology and no barrier to entry for new airports. BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 50 EPA’s selection of AFBR as a BAT is arbitrary. According to Section 9.1 of the TDD, EPA’s selection of A DF collection and treatment technologies was based on the following set of criteria: ability to collect and contain ADF - contaminated storm water; prevalence of use by the aviation industry; engineering aspects of the technology affecting its ease of use; a nd ability to reduce pollutant loadings. Other treatment technologies that EPA assessed included ultrafiltration/reverse osmosis (“UF/RO”), and mechanical vapor recompression (“MVR”) followed by distillation. The use of UF/RO is successfully demonstrated a t PIT and Dallas - Fort Worth International Airport (“DFW”)107 while MVR technology is successfully used at DEN. EPA claims that all of the ADF treatment technologies it evaluated, including the AFBR, satisfy EPA’s assessment criteria since all show the prev alence of their use in the aviation industry, their ease of use from an engineering and technology perspective, and their ability to reduce pollutant loadings. There is no detailed explanation or analysis as to why EPA picked AFBR as a preferable BAT over the others, especially when each technology met EPA’s assessment criteria. EPA discredited the feasibility of UF/RO as the preferred treatment technology because the two systems evaluated by EPA did not demonstrate to sufficiently treat ADF - contaminated st orm water prior to direct discharge. However, the requirement of direct discharge of treated water was not one of EPA’s assessment criteria. Similarly, the MVR technology was discounted as a preferred treatment technology since the technology is typically used when glycol concentrations in ADF - contaminated storm water are greater than 5 percent (i.e., the system is not practical for lower concentrations). It is not appropriate for EPA to assume that all airports would produce ADF - contaminated storm water wi th low concentrations. Furthermore, according to the TDD, the use of infrared deicing was discounted as an available technology for the purposes of establishing effluent guidelines based on EPA’s conclusion that “...IR systems are not widely available or u sed.”108 Applying the same approach, the same can be said about the AFBR treatment technology since it was in use at only one airport in the country during the time of Proposed Rulemaking. Therefore, EPA’s approach in selecting AFBR treatment technology as BAT based on one model airport is arbitrary and is not justified. Response: For the reasons expressed in the preamble, the final rule does not require collection and treatment at existing airports. However, EPA evaluated four technology options available for control of ADF stormwater: Anaerobic Fluidized Bed (AFB), Ultrafiltratio n/Reverse Osmosis, Mechanical Vapor Recompression and Distillation, and Aerated Pond. EPA selected AFB as the basis for COD limitations. The AFB system achieves high levels of pollutant removal, is available and demonstrated, and is economically and techn ically achievable. None of the other technologies evaluated by EPA removed pollutants to the same level as the AFB when evaluated as stand - alone treatment options.95 BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 51 The AFBR treatment technology is widely used in manufacturing, not airports.109 Through the use of the word “industry” in the preamble, the Proposed Rule suggests that AFBR is used widely at airports. This suggestion is inaccurate. A general Internet searc h on AFBR treatment technology reveals that there are primarily only two types of industries that use the AFBR treatment technology, namely food and ammunition manufacturing industries.110 Regardless of the type of the industry, it is evident that the AFBR treatment technology is mostly employed at manufacturing facilities or factories, which are fundamentally different from airports. Industrial or manufacturing type settings pose a controlled environment where process parameters can be controlled to a cert ain extent and hence the wastewater treatment system can be designed and operated consistently where the “end of pipe treatment” is practical and feasible. For example, an industrial process can be made efficient to reduce wastewater generation or the proc ess can be shut down when there are operational problems with the treatment system to avoid exceeding discharge limits. On the other hand, the deicing operation at an airport is based on various natural parameters such as amount and type of precipitation, geographical constrains such as location and land availability, and the practices of various operators (i.e., airlines and FBOs); all of these factors are essentially out of an airport’s (and some out of an air carrier’s) direct control. Response: For th e reasons expressed in the preamble, the final rule does not require collection and treatment at existing airports. EPA concurs with the commenter that AFB treatment systems are more commonly located at manufacturing facilities, but that does not preclude EPA from selecting the technology as the basis for numeric limitations. While deicing operations at an airport are based on natural parameters (i.e., weather), EPA has included storage for both flow and concentration equalization prior to AFB operation. BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 5 The ELG should not specify a collection level below what is currently being demonstrated by the industry. Sixty six airports currently employ centralized deicing pads. At a minimum, industry should be held to current practices. The 60% collection level is based on what current airports are able to achieve. It is the level that has been economically viable to collect, and therefore, should be the only component of best available techn ology. Response: The final rule requires all airports that perform deicing and have 1,000 or more annual departures by jet aircraft to discontinue the use of urea. Additionally, EPA evaluated comments provided on the proposed regulation and determined t hat collection of spent ADF at existing airports is best left for a BPJ limitation, where it can be set on a site by site basis. BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 41 EPA does not account for the fact that mobile co llection technologies are not, in all cases, “available.” First, GRVs require significant operation and maintenance, and when they break down airports cannot96 always immediately repair and return them to service. This is particularly problematic if you only have one GRV. Because the need to conduct deicing activities is dictated by weather, an airport cannot simple reduce or cease deicing if one or more GRVs is not available due to mechanical problems. Obviously, airports that rely on one GRV would have to s top all operations during a deicing event should the GRV break down or risk violating EPA’s ELG standard, if finalized. To account for mechanical problems, airports subject to the 20 percent collection requirements would need to purchase at least one “back - up” GRVs in order to ensure compliance. EPA has not costed the 20 percent collection standard with any such consideration in mind. Response: For the reasons expressed in the preamble, the final rule does not require collection and treatment at existing airports. BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 48 EPA’s reliance on this memo to determine that the proposed collection technology is widely available to the industry, particularly land constrained airports, is without merit. As described above, determining the appropriate number, size, and location of ai rport deicing pads cannot be reduced to a simple formula. In fact, a more thorough analysis would show deicing pads are not an available technology at most land constrained airports or are not available to an extent that would meet the proposed collection requirements. EPA states in the preamble that based on its reliance on the analysis in the February 7, 2008 memo that land constrained airports have sufficient land to install the necessary collection technologies, “economic achievability is the controllin g factor in identifying which option represents BAT for collection of ADF.”47 We adamantly disagree. Response: For the reasons expressed in the preamble, the final rule does not require collection and treatment at existing airports. BAT_AVAIL - BAT avai lability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 66 EPA Falsely Assumes Airports Can Contract Out Fluid Collection and Disposal. EPA concludes that “[f]or airports that occasionally deice aircraft primarily to remove frost, installing permanent collect ion and treatment equipment for spent ADF would not be practical.”57 We whole - heartedly agree with this conclusion.58 However, EPA then unreasonably assumes that these airports will rely on an outside glycol recovery service to collect and remove the limit ed ADF applied. The availability of a contracted glycol recovery service cannot be relied upon in requiring airports that occasionally deice to collect spent ADF. EPA relies on a supporting memo describing a method for estimating the cost of collecting a c ertain volume of deicing fluid using a contractor GRV service. Mobile glycol collection equipment is specifically designed to collect spent deicing fluid and is not of general use or applicability in other industries or for other services. Because the airp orts using small amounts of ADF are generally located in areas where frozen winter precipitation rarely, if ever, occurs, it is unlikely that a glycol recovery service will exist within the immediate vicinity. EPA cannot assume either the availability of s uch a service or the business case for the establishment of such a service in an area such as Southern California or Louisiana. It would be unreasonable to assume a contractor could justify the costs of purchasing and maintaining a GRV or similar equipment used so infrequently by one potential client. The use of equipment not specifically designed for deicing fluid collection (e.g., a vacuum truck) may not work as needed.97 Additionally, disposal will be a challenge for many small communities who may not have the capacity to handle even small amounts of high strength stormwater. EPA developed cost estimates of $1,100 - $6,700 per season to contract out fluid collection and disposal service at small southern tier airports based on information from one contracto r. These estimates ignore the business realities of such a service. In an area such as Southern California where numerous airports are located, the need for such a service is likely to arise at all airports at the same time. Even limited contractor service may not be able to meet the ADF collection needs of all airports simultaneously, particularly without undue delay, which, again, can have substantial operational implications. An airport would either be forced to halt operations until the contractor could arrive to collect any applied fluid or ensure another collection technology (e.g., block and pump) is in place. Such implications have not been considered or factored into the costs of the Proposed Rule. In the alternative, these airports should not be wi thin the scope of any deicing ELG. Response: For the reasons expressed in the preamble, the final rule does not require collection and treatment at existing airports. BAT_AVAIL - BAT availability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 94 EPA’s Costs Must Fit “Real World” Conditions. EPA has made many assumptions that may seem reasonable for the types of past industries it has regulated through the ELG program, but that do not make sense for the aviation industry. For example, EPA assumed that Souther n California airports can contract for GRV service to comply with any ADF collection standard. However, in the real world, there are zero GRV contracting services in Southern California, and even if there was one, every airport would need the same service based on the same weather condition, making such an approach ridiculous. Hence, EPA’s estimates of $1,100 - $6,700 per season for GRV collection at small southern tier airports contradict real world situations. Response: For the reasons expressed in the p reamble, the final rule does not require collection and treatment at existing airports. BAT_COD - BAT limitations for COD Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 32 (EQ Co.) Section XI, (C) of Page 44711. Regarding the Solid Waste Generation discussion, it is our understanding that the AFB at ALB required the addition of an aerobic reactor for final treatment of the AFB effluent to comply with discharge requirements. As such, was the solid waste generated by this final treatment step included in your estimates and the comparison of technologies? Would a similar aerobic system be required at each AFB installation? Response: The commenter is correct in noting that the ALB treatment system includes a final aerobic polishing step. However, the discharge requirements reflect effluent from the AFB treatment (without the aerobic polishing step). Therefore, the solid waste generate d by this final treatment step was not included in EPA’s estimates. In addition, EPA did not assume that other airports would be installing a similar aerobic system.98 BAT_COD - BAT limitations for COD Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 33 § 449.10 (b) If an airport utilizes on - site recycling technologies which discharges the recovered waters to a local POTW (indirect discharge), will the discharges to the POTW be required to meet the BAT limitations (COD, Table I) since the treatment occurred "on s ite" and not at an off - site facility? (The same question applies to the requirements of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), § 449.11 (b).) Response: The COD effluent requirements in final rule apply only to direct discharges from new sources (See NS PS in final regulation text). Indirect discharge to a POTW (PSNS) is not required to meet the COD requirements. BAT_COD - BAT limitations for COD Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 81 TDD Page 14 - 7 references Albany International AFB data located in DCN AD01181. It was noted that the influent data ranged from approx. 2000 mg/I to approx 15,000 mg/I COD. How does this information correlate to the operational limits of the system? Was the same feed rate maintained throughout these run conditions or were there adjustments to the feed rates required? Response: Operation of the Albany AFB system includes flow control to maintain a desired COD loading to the treatment system. Biological treatment systems such as the AFB reactors require extended period s (e.g., days) to grow sufficient amounts of biomass to react to changes in influent COD concentrations. Sudden increases in influent COD levels to the reactors will likely result in increases in effluent COD levels, since there is insufficient biomass in the system to convert the COD to carbon dioxide and methane gas. To dampen influent COD concentration spikes that would ultimately result in effluent COD concentration spikes, EPA has included costs for storage tanks for collected ADF contaminated stormw ater and used cost data from ALB which employs flow control. The storage tanks and system operation will provide both flow and concentration equalization prior to AFB treatment. Including flow and concentration equalization prior to treatment will allow th e AFB reactors to gradually adjust biomass levels to accommodate changes in COD loadings. BAT_COD - BAT limitations for COD Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 108 (ATA) Total COD vs. Soluble COD EPA used 10 years of process monitoring data colle cted by ALB to evaluate and establish AFBR Treatment Standards of 271 mg/L (maximum daily discharge) and 154 mg/L (weekly average discharge). The data provided by ALB consists of daily grab samples of effluent301 from both AFBR and analysis for soluble COD .302 EPA was aware of this as indicated through a confirmation telephone call with ALB and other communications.303 EPA’s proposal to establish limitations for COD is technically flawed in that EPA misrepresents the data by establishing a limit for COD ins tead of soluble COD, the analytical parameter measured by ALB. The analytical methods for COD established in 40 CFR Part 136 do not differentiate between total and soluble COD. The data collected at ALB were not collected for compliance purposes but rather for process monitoring purposes. However, EPA failed to acknowledge the form of COD data collected at ALB. EPA further confuses the issue through a comparison of data EPA collected for total COD during their sampling site visit with the data collected by99 ALB through their monitoring program.304 Specifically, the EPA samples consisted of 24 - hour composites collected at the confluence of the two reactor effluents. These samples were analyzed for total COD. Although EPA did not utilize their sampling results in the calculation of the COD limits, EPA provides a comparison of the two sets of data. The data collected by EPA for total COD averaged 139 mg/L over the 5 - day sampling period. In comparison, the ALB data for soluble COD averaged 68 mg/L over the same 5 - day period, approximately 50% lower than the EPA results. While these data are not directly comparable due to differences in sampling periods (i.e., 24 - hour composite versus grab samples), the data indicate that there are significant differences between to tal and soluble COD concentrations. Given that the data utilized by EPA to develop the limitations was for soluble COD, EPA must clarify the limitations and define the analyte as soluble COD. As noted above, the analytical method for COD does not provide g uidance for the filtration of the sample prior to COD analysis. For other EPA methods in which the dissolved or soluble phase of the analyte is to be measured, EPA has defined “dissolved analyte” as the “concentration of analyte in aqueous phase that will pass through a 0.45 μm filter.” 305 EPA should adopt this definition and define S COD (soluble COD) in the rule as that COD in aqueous phase that will pass through a 0.45 μm filter. Response: EPA agrees that the Albany data upon which it developed the pr oposed limit reflects COD that is filtered. As a result, the final rule includes a standard operating procedure for airports to filter NSPS compliance samples prior to analysis for COD. See Appendix A to Part 449. BAT_COD - BAT limitations for COD Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 14 (AK DEC) We notice the MSGP benchmark for COD of 120 mg/L is lower than the proposed weekly average of 154 mg/L, what about lowering the COD level? We have not had the time to do a thorough review of the supporting documentation of why EPA decided to require only COD in Table 1. In general, we want EPA to reconsider Table 1 and add glycol and BOD. See Canadian requirements for their airports. Response: The COD NSPS promulgated today appropriately reflects data from the technology basis in the record, and represents the BADT level of control. See section 13 of the TDD for more information on EPA’s calculations for COD. In response to EPA's selection of pollutants to regulate, see the EPA response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 excerpt 20. BAT_COD - BAT limitations for COD Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 15 We agree with the substitution of the weekly average effluent limitation for the monthly average effluent limitation. Due to the nature of the dei cing activities (low one day, high the next) and the deicing season being only part of the year, the weekly average (rather than the monthly average) will make it easier to address issues of compliance monitoring. Response: EPA thanks this commenter for their input.100 BAT_COD - BAT limitations for COD Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 20 §449.10 (Table 1) Please include glycol and BOD5 Response: For the reasons explained in the preamble, the final rule does not include requirements to control ai rcraft deicing discharges at existing airports. Those requirements will be established based on a site specific BPJ analysis. Therefore this comment does not apply to the BAT in the final rule. However, EPA has decided to regulate COD only for aircraft deicing discharges from new airports. See the preamble and Section 9 of the TDD for discussion on why EPA selected COD as the regulated pollutant. The agency has selected COD as an indicator for ADF. Although glycol is one pollutant of concern, it is not the only component of ADF which EPA views as a pollutant of concern for purposes of this rule. BAT_COD – BAT limitations for COD Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 57 (PA NY&NJ) EPA should clarify whether the COD effluent limits in the Proposed Rule are total or soluble COD. The Proposed Rule requires the effluent discharge limits of 271 mg/l daily maximum and 154 mg/l weekly average, which are essentially developed as part of EPA’s evaluation of ALB’s AFBR treatment system. The operation data s ubmitted by ALB to EPA reflect that the COD values represent soluble COD only.130 However, the Proposed Rule makes no distinction as to the type of COD and leaves it open for interpretation by the permitting authority. This issue raises a number of concern s, as described in detail in comments submitted by ACI

– NA. The Port Authority concurs with the ACI - NA comments on this point and urges EPA to clarify this critical issue. Response: See the EPA response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, excerpt 108. BAT_COD - BAT limitations for COD Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 73 (ACI - NA) EPA Must Reconcile Whether Its Treatment Standard and Underlying Analyses Address Total COD or Soluble COD. In the Proposed Rule, EPA sets chemical oxygen demand (COD) limi ts of 271 mg/L daily maximum and 154 mg/L weekly average in effluent discharged from treatment systems to surface waters. Throughout the Proposed Rule and supporting documents, the limits are based on Anaerobic Fluidized Bed (AFB) model technology, and are described simply in terms of COD without explaining whether the basis for that measurement is Total COD or Soluble COD, an important distinction. EPA must clearly explain whether total or soluble COD data were used as the basis for establishing the COD li mit and whether Total or Soluble COD is the intended effluent limit parameter. In addition, the difference between these two parameters must be reconciled in EPA’s analyses. The key issues regarding whether EPA intended to regulate Total or Soluble COD inc lude: • The effluent data from the ALB AFB used by EPA were Soluble COD • The selection of the AFB as BAT by EPA appears to be based strictly on the AFB bioreactor and the systems that support the biological activity. Handling of biosolids is a separate te chnology, as evidenced by the ALB system, in which the solids handling systems are not directly connected to the AFB. No reference is made to solids handling systems in the Proposed Rule. • If the effluent limit were specified in terms of Total COD, provis ions would need to be made by an airport for a101 solids handling system. There is no information to suggest that costs for solids handling (which are very site specific) are included in EPA cost estimates. • The existing airports using AFB systems use Solubl e COD and not Total COD to manage system influent and assess system performance. If the systems are forced to operate to meet COD limits that include the solids fraction, they may need to reduce the flow rates entering the treatment system, jeopardizing th eir ability the meet water quality based effluent limits, effectively reducing their available storage capacity, and increasing the risk to the environment from storage overflows. • Local permitting authorities may base NPDES effluent limits on Total COD, instead of Soluble COD, which would impose a more restrictive discharge limit on airports than EPA may intend. Soluble COD is the COD of liquid fraction (i.e., the fraction passing through a filter used in a suspended solids test). Total COD is the COD of the liquid fraction plus the COD of any solids in a sample. Soluble COD is the parameter used by the existing AFB systems (Albany International (ALB) and Akron - Canton Regional (CAK) Airports) to measure the performance of their AFB systems. Soluble COD is used because: • The freezing point depressants in aircraft deicing fluids (propylene glycol, ethylene glycol, glycerin) are highly soluble. As a result, the COD in the stormwater collected from airports is almost entirely soluble. Only small amounts of sus pended solids typically result from wash off of non - deicing pollutants. The draft ELG rule addresses only contaminants associated with deicing operations, not with non - deicer constituents associated with materials washed from the airport surfaces. • Total COD concentration measurements in the treated effluent, which include measurement of the biosolids fraction, are highly dependent upon treatment system flow rate. Treatment system flow rate can be highly variable within a given AFB system and from airport to airport due to the significant variation in influent soluble COD concentration and the need to operate the AFB systems at a near constant soluble COD load. From our analyses, EPA appears to have unknowingly used Soluble COD data to craft the proposed tr eatment standards. The supporting document titled “Long Term Data from Albany Airport with EPA Comments” includes the daily effluent concentrations from each of the anaerobic fluidized bed reactors at the existing ALB AFB treatment system.59 According to t his document, the values for effluent concentration are in “S COD (mg/L),” which we interpret to mean Soluble COD. We have also confirmed with individuals familiar with the ALB system that the COD measurements taken and reported in the referenced document are, in fact, in terms of Soluble COD. EPA apparently used the Soluble COD data to establish COD effluent limits and conduct cost - benefit analyses for the Proposed Rule. This leads to a number of problems. Such analyses result in a technically inaccurate r epresentation of ALB AFB treatment system performance and inappropriately add a solids removal requirement to the BAT. Use of “COD” alone will likely be interpreted as “total COD” by permit writers. Because EPA, in fact, used Soluble COD as its basis for d evelopment of the proposed effluent limits, EPA must have intended to propose limits in terms of Soluble COD. In the alternative, however, EPA could specify limits in terms of Total COD, but include in the derivation of such limits the appropriate non - solu ble COD potentially found in airport influent (perhaps revisiting the ALB AFB). In any event, EPA must address this issue and recalculate limits one way or the other. Failure to make this change would be technically inconsistent and extend the basis for th e treatment BAT from only the AFB unit itself to the biosolids handling system. The biosolids handling system at ALB does not immediately follow the anaerobic fluidized bed reactor. Therefore, there are no data from ALB from which a BAT for solids removal could be established. In addition, to comply with a rule in terms of total COD, airports would need to control system flow rates to meet total COD limits, rather than controlling flow rates to hit a target influent soluble COD loading. Operating under thes e circumstances would require much larger systems that would need to be operated in a way that could jeopardize compliance with water quality - based limits. Currently, to manage the biosolids fraction of the effluent, airports either discharge the solids to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) or remove biosolids in a separate system designed to meet water quality based solids requirements. Response: See the EPA response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, excerpt 108.102 BAT_COD - BAT limitations for COD Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 79 EPA’s Assumption That the ALB Data Was Representative of the Range of Potential Site Conditions Is Flawed and Affects the Effluent Limit Calculation. The analysis presented above showing the relationship of influent loading to effluent concentration was performed only on ALB data. Since EPA performed its analysis, the first full season of operational data from the Akron - Canton Airport (CAK) AFB system (2008 - 2009) has become available. The CAK deicer management system differs from the ALB system in that deicing collection is performed on deicing pads and in that the storage volume for collected deicer is considerably less. It also differs in that the NPDES effluent limits are in terms of propylene glycol concentration, rather than COD. Those differences in operations and permit compliance requirements led to a different set of design conditions for the CAK systems. In operation, operational decisions regarding influent loading rates and flow rates were made to meet the compliance requirements for that facility. By being able to operate according to their design intent and having the operational flexibility to adjust to changing influent conditions, both the ALB and CAK systems have been able to achieve COD removal rates of greater than 99.5 percent and meet their compliance requirements. In an attempt to analyze the effect of those differing design, operational, and compliance conditions on effluent limits, the average influent COD loadings and average COD effluent limits from CAK were incorporated into the loading effluent concentration analysis performed on the ALB data as described above. Based on EPA’s analysis that each reactor is considered a separate facility, incorporation of the CAK data into the effluent limit an alysis simply adds additional facilities to the data set. The table below shows the values for the 99th percentile effluent soluble COD concentration from each of the ALB reactors considering only the five seasons that fell within 25 percent of the reactor s maximum COD loading rate capacity as well as the 99th percentile effluent soluble COD concentration from each of the two reactors at the CAK system from the 2008 - 2009 deicing season. The 99th percentile values shown below were calculated using the method ology described in the TDD. [See submittal for Table 7. 99th Percentile Soluble COD Effluent Concentrations from Each Treatment Reactor] When the results from all reactors are assessed using the EPA methodology, the results indicate a 99th percentile efflu ent concentration of 443 mg/L soluble COD, which is substantially higher and more appropriate than EPA’s proposed limit of 271 mg/L (soluble) COD. The same set of data used to recalculate the 99th percentile daily effluent concentrations was used to recalc ulate the 97th percentile weekly effluent soluble COD concentrations from each of the four reactors for which data exists. The table below shows the 97th percentile effluent concentrations utilizing only seasons operated within 25 percent of the reactors c apacity and calculated using the same methodology described in the TDD. [See submittal for Table 8. 97th Percentile Soluble COD Effluent Weekly Average Concentrations from Each Treatment Unit0 The results show a 97th percentile soluble COD concentration of 304 mg/L soluble COD, which is significantly higher and more appropriate than the 154 mg/L soluble COD presented in the proposed rule. These results suggest that site specific considerations and operational decisions have an impact on the calculated efflu ent limits in the proposed rule. Failure to conduct a more thorough analysis of model BAT treatment for this particular ELG and this uniquely complex industry will yield results that cannot be implemented by the industry or defended by EPA. Response: EPA chose not to include data from the CAK system in the analysis for the final rule. See comment code BAT_PER response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, excerpt 110 for more information. Also, this comment reflects an existing AFB system that, as stated by the commenter, reflects a different set of design conditions and storage equalization capacity from the model facility used to establish today’s NSPS requirements. New airports will have the ability to design their treatment systems to achieve today's NSPS requirements.103 BAT_COD - BAT limitations for COD Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1 - 8 Influent Soluble COD Loading Rates Impact the Effluent Concentrations from an AFB Treatment System Under Certain Critical Circumstances. On page 14 - 5 of t he TDD for the Proposed Rule, EPA concludes that a well - operated and designed AFB treatment system should be capable of treating deicer runoff to a narrow range of effluent concentrations despite variation in influent COD concentrations. In drawing this co nclusion, EPA determined that influent COD concentrations, and by extension other influent characteristics, do not directly affect effluent concentrations for an AFB treatment system. However, this determination is only correct under a limited set of opera tional circumstances and in particular is not applicable to the circumstances under which CAK operates our AFB system. EPA neglected to fully assess the relationship between influent loading rate (pounds of COD/day) and effluent COD concentration. EPA’s da ta is based off of only one site’s influent characteristics. It failed to identify that the effluent COD concentrations are more sensitive to variations in influent COD concentrations for systems like ours which operate with much higher influent COD concen trations that the ALB system. It should be noted that CAK’s influent COD concentrations are higher than ALB’s influent COD concentrations because CAK uses a deicing pad for collection. In essence basing the effluent limits only on ALB data punishes us for using both of EPA’s BATs

– deicing pads and the AFB system. These oversights resulted in the establishment of proposed effluent COD limit values that are lower than an appropriate analysis of the available AFB system data supports. The relationship between influent COD load and effluent COD concentration is critical in the design and operation of our AFB system. The system is designed to operate at a constant influent soluble COD load and operate near the treatment capacity of the AFB system. Operation at a near constant influent COD load is desirable because it results in a more stable bacterial population, improving the treatment efficiency and increasing the predictability of system effluent. Increasing operational predictability decreases the risk of non - compliance. As discussed below, our own experiences and discussions with others familiar with the ALB operating data suggest that COD effluent concentrations are higher when the influent COD loading is within 25% of the treatment capacity of the reactors. The effluent concentrations when operating at higher loadings tend to be higher on average basis, as well as concentrations calculated for the 97th and 99th percentiles. We know that lower effluent concentrations could be achieved if we operated at lower influent loadings, but we consider this not to be necessary to achieve compliance with our water quality based limits and an inefficient use of our capital resources. Response: See comment code BAT_PER response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 75. Also, see response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 excerpt # 79. Finally, EPA notes that this excerpt concludes by saying this system, if operated differently would achieve the effluent limits. They choose not to do this because they have less stringent discharge requirements. BAT_IR - Infrared as BAT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1202.1 - 4 (Radiant Aviation) Radiant’s IR system can be installed at the vast majority of commercial service or military airports throughout the US. The “availability”, or ability to offer Radiant’s I/R deicing system should therefore be considered with the same criteria as the availa bility or ability to construct a central pad deicing facility. Radiant’s IR systems have been installed for over a decade at several US airports providing deicing services to many major and regional airline operators. Radiant data shows that their IR syste ms’ throughput performance, low emissions and material cost coupled to the high rate of customer retention at these facilities, validates the use of this technology for winter operations at any airport worldwide. An IR104 facility is a relatively simple assem bly, is less complex to construct and causes less disruption to airport operations when compared to the installation of a deice pad. The IR hardware components themselves are extremely reliable and delivered within normal industry lead times. Radiant there fore challenges the EPA on the assertion that the system has limited availability or applicability. IR deicing technology is as available as any other airport winter operations equipment. I/R units can be installed at multiple locations at airports which h ave high capacity. Individual Radiant I/R systems can also be incorporated into a central pad facility. Page 44690 Table VII - 2 states that Central Deicing Facilities would only be needed at 14 airports and that a lesser glycol collection standard can be ap plied at the remainder. IR Deicing facilities can be cost effectively installed at a far greater number of airports than that and will dramatically avoid more glycol through genuine source reduction than the 20% that a GRV will have to recover. At the same time it will bring proven operational and financial benefits to those airports as well as the obvious environmental ones. That capability in itself should qualify IR deicing technology for BAT status. Radiant’s Commercial Service History 1. Rhinelander, W I

– Operational since 1998: o Purchased and operated by the airport on a self - serve basis. o A small facility designed for and used primarily by regional and commuter aircraft. 2. JFK, NY

– Operational since 2006: o One IR unit was purchased by the Port Au thority of New Jersey New York (PANYNJ) as an initial technology evaluation to encourage airlines away from gate deicing. It was not purchased with the intent of covering the entire deicing needs of the airport. It is estimated that this single unit curren tly handles up to 15% of JFK’s entire deicing requirements. This unit deices aircraft ranging in size from Boeing 777 down to small executive jets. o A number of major US and international airlines use the facility as their primary means of deicing, and th e system can handle 100% of the deicing needs of those airlines. o The PANYNJ long - range plan for JFK includes consideration of additional IR deicing facilities as part of an airport - wide winter operations solution. 3. Newark, NJ

– Operational between 2000 and 2007: o Owned by Radiant, leased to and operated by Continental Airlines which handled approximately 25% of the airlines daily deicing requirements. o The facility was custom designed such that 80% of the aircraft types using the airport at the time c ould fit within the facilities structure for deicing. o As a single IR unit, it was not intended to meet the entire deicing needs of Newark airport. More than 1,460 aircraft deicing operations were completed. 4. Buffalo, NY

– Operational between 1997 and 2 002: o A demonstration system installed in 1995 for the original FAA testing. The second system installed in 1997 and remained until 2002 servicing regional and many other general aviation aircraft. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH _FORCING). (The final rule does not require existing airports to collect ADF ). EPA disagrees that IR technology is widely available. As stated in the rulemaking record, there is only one airport, among those airports subject to the final rule that is using an IR system. There is only one system installed at this airport (JFK Airport in New York) and it covers only a small portion of the flights that require deicing. The remaining flights at the airport are deiced conventionally, using chemical deicers. N o primary airport has employed IR on an ongoing basis for a majority of their flights. This limited demonstration of IR technology, combined with the significant space requirements for the IR facility, make it impossible to determine the technical feasibil ity of all airports to install and use this system for deicing aircraft. Therefore EPA is unable to use this technology as the basis for BAT. For NSPS, space limitations are not an issue, but the limited demonstration reasoning explained above still app lies. However, for the NSPS ADF collection and discharge requirements, the final rule includes a provision under which dischargers may receive credit towards this require me nt for pollution prevention approaches. To the extent that dischargers wish to use IR, this provision would allow it.105 BAT_IR - Infrared as BAT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 12 (EQ Co.) Page 44688, Section VII, (B), (3) (a): NOTE: The IR system referenced as being at Newark Liberty International (EWR) has not been operated since 2007, and it is our understanding (Facility Owner's publically available financial statements) that the system is schedule to be dismantled. Response: The final rule does not mention Newark Liberty Airport's previously - installed IR system. BAT_PER - BAT performance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1193.1 - 1 I oppose EPA’s choice of centralized deicing pads and glycol recovery vehicles (GRVs) as the only Best Available Technologies Economically Achievable (BAT) for collecting ADF (Section VII (3) (E)) on the basis that current and future harmful airfield pavement deicers will largely go uncollected using this method. Response: See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231 excerpt 5. BAT_PER - BAT performance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1207.1 - 1 Airports in the Northern United States will have much higher volumes of wastewater to deal with. It may not be practical to treat this wastewater on - site. Biological treatment systems must be closely monitored to achieve adeq uate treatment, and are sensitive to slug loadings. Response: See the EPA response to (BAT_PER - BAT) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 75, EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241, Comment Excerpt 8 and EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 74 BAT_PER - B AT performance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 9 Wastewater Treatment and Recycling Technologies: Page 44687, Section VII, (B), (2). The first observation in this section relates to the apparent comparison of removal (COD/BOD) efficiencies betw een the four technologies discussed. It appears that the direct discharge systems (AFB and aerated ponds) and the indirect discharge systems (Membranes and MVR/Distillation) are being compared as if all effluents are being direct discharged. Although a dir ect discharge compliant effluent could be generated by a recovery/recycling system, they typically generate a low BOD/COD effluent that is usually (indirect) discharged to a POTW for final treatment. Since all of this (Membrane & MVR/Distillation treated A DF) is diverted away from the outfall(s), wouldn't this removal efficiencies be considered 100%? (This removal efficiency would hold true for all treatment/disposal options which did not rely on the airports outfalls for direct discharge.)106 Response: See comment code BAT_RECYCLE response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 16. BAT_PER - BAT performance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 10 This section also states that four potential BAT wastewater technologies have been identif ied. Reviewing the TDD, it appears that only oilIwater separation (including DAF which does little to reduce BOD/COD), and natural attenuation were also considered. 5 It also appears that aeration ponds were the only aerobic treatment method reviewed or co mpared to the anaerobic process (AFB) being proposed. Aerobic treatment methods (some noted below) appear to have been discounted or overlooked based on the assumption that they are more energy intensive and/or generate larger volumes of solid waste. It do es not appear that the technologies have been assessed based on removal efficiencies (as viewed at the outfalls) as have the remaining four options. The waste water treatment industry is dynamic, with improvements in efficiencies, and reductions in costs h appening every year. Considering that aerobic systems are operating at a number of airports in the U.S., and many more industrial waste water treatment firms (operating under the Central Wastewater Treatment regulations (CWT)) using aerobic systems, it doe s not seem appropriate to not compare the technologies based on criteria used to select AFB over all others. Response: EPA notes that it did not establish uniform performance requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing facilities, therefore this comment is no longer relevant to the final rule. EPA's evaluation of other technologies used by airports, when evaluated as stand - alone treatment for direct discharge demonstrated less pollutant reduction than AFB treatment. Although AFB treatment was selected as the basis for NSPS for aircraft deicing discharges, airports may use any other technology that meets the new source performance standards, therefore aerobic biological treatment could be used provided it can meet direct discharge COD new sourc e performance standard. BAT_PER - BAT performance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 46 TDD Page 8 - 8, section 8.2.2: As noted previously, the section on biological treatment seems quite limited, without discussion of the aerobic treatment methods available or some of the advance oxidation methods employed as stand alone or in conjunction with biotreatment methods. The table on Page 4 - 3 states that the team visited the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG) because of the use of ae robic treatment technologies, yet there appears to be no analysis of the technology in comparison with the other options considered. Response: EPA performed a site visit at CVG to learn more about the airport's aerobic treatment systems. The airport has a wastewater treatment plant that has an aerated sequencing batch reactor followed by anaerobic digestion and aeration of the discharge. At the time of EPA’s site visit, airport personnel noted that the aerobic treatment system at CVG was not operating ide ally in cold weather conditions or during severe storm conditions. Based on this information, and the fact that the system requires multiple treatment steps to achieve removals, EPA decided not to further evaluate that system as a potential technology basi s for the effluent limitations guidelines and standards because this particular system was not designed to represent optimal performance of the technology, but only the effluent limitations it was107 currently subject to. EPA notes that it did not find on - si te aerobic biological treatment to be common at airports, since most airports access the technology as part of indirect discharge to their local POTW. EPA did, however, evaluate the system used by Rockford airport, including on - site sampling to evaluate th e system performance and achievable effluent. Finally, today’s NSPS for COD do not mandate a specific technology. Airports may meet the requirements using any technology, including aerobic biological treatment, as long as they comply with the NSPS . BAT_PER - BAT performance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 53 The description provided under TDD section 9.1.4, when compared to 9.1.5 (or others) highlights the fact that the limitations of an AFB system are never presented or compared in the s ame context as it is done for the other considered technologies. Section 9.1.3 presents a simple overview of the technology, providing a couple of positive aspects (lower odor and solids generation) whereas, the subsequent section on recycle operations doe s not follow the same format, and focuses on feed limitations (which are inaccurately presented) and products/by - products. The AFB technology is also very limited by how much ADF (concentration = COD) can be fed to the system and the overall process rates are dictated by the quantity and strength of bio - mass acclimated to the waste. It is this omission of detail which has lead the EPA to couple a GRV collection to an AFB treatment system, a pairing that will result (in most cases) to a "poisoning" of the bi omass and the shut - down of the system. Response: See the EPA response to (BAT_PER - BAT) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 75 and EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1, Comment Excerpt 16. Finally, in evaluating BAT, EPA compared the performance of vari ous systems by comparing percent removal, see the Technical Development Document for these analysis. BAT_PER - BAT performance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 60 TDD Page 11 - 2, section 11.1 provides the statement "the residual waste streams from these technologies (referencing recycle) may require additional treatment or must be discharged to a Public Owned Treatment Works (POTW)". This may also be true for the BAT technology proposed, as the effluent form the AFB at Albany International has to be treated by an aerobic treatment system to meet (direct) discharge parameters. Additionally, the claim "the anaerobic fluidized bed reactor has the flexibility to accept AD F - contaminated stormwater with a wide range of glycol concentrations" is overstatement of the technology's capabilities. Typically, an AFB is capable of treating an influent 0 to - 30,000 mg/I COD (0 to - 2% PG). In comparison, the recycling technologies ar e capable of processing from - 0.8% to 99% ADF feed: • UF/RO: 0.8% to 10% ADF feed • Evaporator: 1% to 40% • Distillation: 40% to 99% Response: EPA no longer has established a collection/treatment requirement as the technology basis for BAT in today’s ru le. Although EPA did not select recycle/recovery as the technology basis of NSPS, the final rule does not preclude the use of recycle/recovery of collected glycol. See comment code BAT_RECYCLE response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerp t 16 for more discussion.108 BAT_PER - BAT performance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 82 TDD Figure 14 - 1 of page 14 - 8 does not identify that samples were taken of the systems influent or of the effluent of the aerobic polish system? Where these d ata points obtained, and the reference omitted from the figure? Response: EPA did obtain samples from the effluent of the aerobic treatment at ALB. However, when setting the final effluent limitations, EPA only evaluated the AFB treatment system (without the aerobic polishing step). BAT_PER - BAT performance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 4 Lowest concentration fraction (i.e., <1,000 mg/L BOD5) often represents the largest volume of runoff to be managed. Where onsite treatment is required, i t has been effectively accomplished via aerobic biological treatment systems. This concentration range is significantly below the design influent concentrations for both of the AFB facilities that EPA cites in the proposed rule. Response: See the EPA response to (BAT_PER - BAT) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 5. BAT_PER - BAT performance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 5 These distinctions are why combinations of treatment technologies are commonly used by airports to manage th e different streams. As noted later in these comments, even Albany County Airport (ALB), the location of the single long - term application of AFB technology to treat aircraft deicing runoff and the source of all of EPA’s performance data on AFB, needed a co mbination of technologies to meet permit limitations for surface water discharge s . Cincinnati / Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG) provides an example where different technologies are employed in combination, each being best suited to different deicing runoff concentrations. Concentrated runoff collected by glycol recovery vehicles and deicing pad drains is recycled. Middle strength runoff down to 0.1% is also recycled. The lowest strength fraction (<0.1% glycol) is sent through a train of aerobi c biological treatment and polishing processes before being released to receiving waters under the airport’s NPDES permit. Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that the ability to discharge deicing stormwater and the appropriate collection, treatment, or disposal options for a specific existing airport vary based on a variety of site specific conditions. As such, the final rule does not establish uniform requirements for aircraft deicing discharges. As explained in the preamble, however, EPA finds new airports do not have the same constraints as existing airports and has promulgated uniform NSPS for aircraft deicing discharges. Although the AFB treatment system was selected as the basis for the NSPS, the final rule does not preclude the use of other tr eatment or disposal technologies to meet the NSPS.109 BAT_PER - BAT performance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 9 (Inland) The ability to discharge treated deicing stormwater to surface waters depends on site - specific factors, and is inappropr iate as a primary criterion for selecting BAT. Every onsite deicing runoff treatment and processing facility is designed to meet the unique combination of conditions, requirements, and opportunities at the airport where it is located. Primary consideration s include: the volumes and concentrations of runoff requiring treatment, ready accessibility to POTW capacity, the complexity of adding a new pollutant source to the airport’s NPDES permit, and the effluent limits in the NPDES permit. These factors vary tr emendously among airports across the nation, and even within the same state. As an example, Table 1 compares water - quality based effluent limits in the NPDES permits held by two airports in Ohio. If an onsite treatment facility were needed at both of these airports, each would be designed to a different set of effluent parameters and concentrations. A treatment design that met the surface water discharge requirements at DAY would not necessarily be suitable at CMH where discharge limits are more stringent. It’s worth noting that a typical onsite glycol recycling facility would readily meet either of these sets of effluent limits. The AFB unit at Akron - Canton Airport (CAK) is designed to an effluent COD concentration of <340 mg/L and propylene glycol concent ration of <1 mg/L2. This facility was designed to meet the requirements of the CAK NPDES permit. The facility would not provide acceptable performance at ALB where the equivalent COD limit is about 55 mg/L. This simple comparison shows that even at EPA’s “model” airports, the site - specific factors drove the design of each treatment facility and an AFB designed for one airport will not necessarily provide the ability for direct discharge at the other airport. Response: EPA agrees, for the reasons stated i n the preamble, that uniform requirements at existing sources are inappropriate. See the EPA response to (BAT_PER - BAT) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1, Comment Excerpt 5. BAT_PER - BAT performance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1222.1 - 5 EPA must use compliance monitoring effluent limitations based on the maximum concentrations rather than weekly or monthly averages. Stormwater discharge from airports is a storm - event specific occurrence, with the volume and concentration of ADF pollutants being highly variable depending upon factors such as the duration and intensity of winter weather; operation, maintenance and effectiveness of controls; and the hydraulic conveyance and on - site retention capacity of the Airport (i.e. ponds). EPA’s propos al to use weekly or monthly average effluent limitations for COD does not ensure that peak concentrations of ADF pollution are captured. AMWA and AWWA recommend that EPA finalize the rule in such as way as to ensure that compliance monitoring captures the peak discharge COD concentration in the stormwater to ensure that ADF pollution runoff is mitigated before discharge off - site. Response: EPA agrees that the volume and concentrations of ADF pollutants are variable and dependant on numerous factors. In th e final rule for NSPS, EPA is requiring new sources to meet a daily maximum and weekly average COD effluent limitation (§ 449.11 (a)(2)). EPA has reasonably addressed the variability in COD found in these discharges by the use of equalization storage tank s that are feasible to employ and whose costs were accounted for in the Agency's NSPS evaluation. Proper design and use of equalization should minimize the variability of the spent ADF sent to the AFB treatment system.110 See section VI.C of the preamble f or more information. BAT_PER - BAT performance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 25 The ADF Treatment Standard does not represent the performance of ALB’s system. Nor does it represent the performance of the only other currently operating AFBR sy stem, i.e., at CAK. In addition, the ADF Treatment Standard does not fairly reflect the performance that can be expected from AFBRs deployed at the other airports EPA anticipates will need to install AFBR treatment systems

– particularly at much larger and much smaller airports. Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. The final rule’s COD NSPS requirements are based on the performance of ALB’s AFB treatment systems using several years' worth of data. See Section 13 in the TDD for details on the limi t calculation. ALB’s system represents the BADCT because the technology can be employed at new airports. New airports can design and install the treatment system and associated facilities (such as piping, equalization tanks, etc.) at the time of airport construction with no disruption in airport service -- the airport itself will also be under construction. The costs associated with this construction activity are not a barrier to entry for a new facility. Further, the data supporting the NSPS is based on treatment system performance at an existing facility. These data account for the variability of effluent because equalization equipment are part of configuration that EPA considered in determining that this performance represents BADCT. See the TDD for m ore detail on the derivation of the numeric limits. However, EPA agrees the rule should not be based on the performance at CAK, which was designed and is operated to meet less stringent discharge requirements. See the response to EPA - HQ OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226 .1 - 110 (ATA). BAT_PER - BAT performance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 28 CAK Performance vs. ALB Performance Since the development of the draft ELG proposal, the only other example of an AFB reactor designed to treat stormwater containing r esidual ADF has been placed into operation at CAK. This system is considered state of the art and although similar to ALB in terms of the load of COD treated per cubic foot of media, it is different from the ALB system in both the concentration of material treated (CAK average influent S COD concentration is 68,951 mg/L compared to the average ALB influent concentration of 5,620 mg/L COD) and the rate of treatment (average flow at ALB was 90 gpm compared to average flow at CAK of 4 gpm for both reactors com bined). It is prudent to utilize the performance of this new unit to determine whether treatment efficiencies based on ALB data alone are supportable. We have obtained data from the first year of operation of this system and utilized them to calculate the 99th percentile discharge SCOD concentration. These data result in the calculation of a 99th percentile concentrations of 402 and 255 mg/L SCOD with a median concentration of 328.5 mg SCOD/L. Response: See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226 .1, Comment Excerpt 110. (ATA)111 BAT_PER - BAT performance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 110 CAK Performance vs. ALB Performance Since the development of the draft ELG proposal, the only other example of an AFBR reactor designed to treat storm water containing residual ADF has been placed into operation. This system is considered state of the art and although similar to ALB in terms of the load of COD treated per cubic foot of media, it is different from the ALB system in both the concentration of material treated (CAK average influent S COD concentration is 68,951 mg/L compared to the average ALB influent concentration of 5,620 mg/L COD) and the rate of treatment (average flow at ALB was 90 gpm compared to average flow at CAK of 4 gpm for both r eactors combined). It is prudent to utilize the performance of this new unit to determine whether treatment efficiencies based on ALB data alone are supportable. We have obtained data from the first year of operation of this system and utilized them to cal culate the 99th percentile discharge SCOD concentration. These data result in the calculation of a 99th percentile concentrations of 402 and 255 mg/L SCOD with a median concentration of 328.5 mg SCOD/L. Note that as part of this calculation, a significant amount of data collected during system start - up was eliminated because the system operation during those periods was characterized as ”system upset.” Thus, the 99th percentile concentrations calculated above do not reflect start - up conditions. Specifically , effluent start - up data from 11/1/08 to 12/14/08 were eliminated due to “system upset” conditions. During this period, the average effluent concentration was 1,215 mg/L S COD and ranged between 212 and 2,238 mg/L S COD. Had these data been included to rep resent start - up conditions, the percentile concentration (which forms the basis for establishing the daily maximum standard) would be a significantly higher value. These data illustrate two concepts. First, the higher influent concentrations at CAK resulte d in a higher effluent concentration. Second, there is significant variability between the two CAK reactors (although both received similar if not identical influents). The imposition of more restrictive limits on CAK (based on ALB performance) may require CAK to operate at a lower loading thereby increasing storage requirements (e.g., to comply with the limit, the water must be treated at a lower rate). Put another way, using data from just one of two extant plants already puts the second plant, which EPA would likely agree is a state of the art AFBR, out of compliance. Further, because the root cause of the variability between reactors is not known (and apparently not controllable), the effluent limitation should be based on the higher of the two limitatio ns. Response: EPA did not include the data from the Akron - Canton Airport (CAK) AFB treatment system in the final rule analysis because that system's operation was not considered to be performing at a level that represents BAT or BADCT. At the time that EPA did its data collection, the Agency was told that the CAK system was not designed to optimize performance, but rather to meet the airport's current permit limits. In the preamble to the final rule, EPA notes that the NSPS, which are based on BADCT, ma y require some new sources to design their systems to a higher performance level than some existing systems, to meet the effluent limitations consistently. Additionally, CAK states in its comments to EPA that “we know that lower effluent limitations could be achieved if we operated at lower influent concentration, but we consider this to not be necessary to achieve compliance with our water quality based limits.” As such, CAK acknowledges it could get better performance, but chose not to do so as its permi t does not require it. See the response to comment EPA HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 109.112 BAT_PER - BAT performance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 75 EPA Should Consider the Range of Influent COD Concentrations for Which the AFB Systems are Applicable While AFB treatment systems can be engineered to treat a wide range of COD loads, there are technical and economic considerations that limit the range of COD treatment concentrations for which the AFB is suited. Analyses of the AFB c apabilities indicate that the AFB technology should be limited to situations where the influent COD concentrations entering the treatment system can be maintained between 2,000 mg/L and 128,000 mg/L. This concentration range was derived from a series of an alysis that relied, in part, on observations of AFB performance in airport deicing environments. Response: EPA selected AFB as the basis for the COD standards, because it has high levels of pollutant removal, is available and demonstrated, and is economic ally and technically achievable. EPA acknowledges that AFB treatment systems have limitations on the range of influent COD loads that may be treated, and as such the system requires storage equalization. Biological treatment systems such as the AFB react ors require extended periods (e.g,, days) to grow sufficient amounts of biomass to react to changes in influent COD concentrations. Sudden increases in influent COD levels to the reactors may result in sudden increases in effluent COD levels since there i s insufficient biomass in the system to convert the COD to carbon dioxide and methane gas. To dampen influent COD concentration spikes that would ultimately result in effluent COD concentration spikes, EPA has included consideration of costs for equalizat ion tanks for collected ADF contaminated stormwater as part of the technology basis for NSPS. The equalization tanks will provide both flow and concentration equalization prior to AFB treatment. Including flow and concentration equalization prior to treat ment will allow the AFB reactors to gradually adjust biomass (a.k.a. biosolids) levels to accommodate slight changes in COD loadings. Although the AFB treatment system was selected as the technology basis for the NSPS, as is the case for all effluent limi tations guidelines and standards, the final rule does not preclude the use of other treatment or disposal technologies that meet the NSPS. Airports that have collected ADF with COD concentrations beyond the range of AFB treatment may consider alternative technologies to recover/recycle, treat, or dispose of the collected ADF. Additionally, final rule does not include uniform national AFD discharge requirements for existing airports. Also, see the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment E xcerpt 190 and comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232, Comment Excerpt 49. BAT_PER - BAT performance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 77 Maximum Concentration Analysis In systems treating very high COD concentrations, the relationship between COD con centration, flow rate and constant COD load is also maintained in an AFB system. Similar to the low COD concentration case described above, the need to modify flow in response to COD concentrations at higher COD influent concentrations is not an issue for most of the COD concentration range to be treated at most airports. As influent soluble COD concentrations exceed approximately 128,000 mg/L, however, management of biosolids in the AFB treatment systems within the reactor /solids separator loop becomes a limiting factor. The rate of solids removal is dependent on the loading rate and is therefore nearly constant for an AFB treatment system. Normally, influent flow rates are much larger than the solids removal rate. If the influent flow rate decreases to less than the rate at which solids are removed from the system, more volume will be leaving the system than entering the system. This will cause the system to no longer operate in equilibrium and eventually make fluidization and treatment impossible.113 Respo nse: See the EPA response to (BAT_PER - BET) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 75. BAT_PER - BAT performance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1 - 7 In establishing the proposed COD limits, EPA made several inaccurate simplifying assumpti ons with regards to anaerobic fluidized bed (AFB) treatment systems in their development of effluent limits. Data is presented below indicating that EPA needs to perform a more in depth analysis of AFB performance data in assessing potential effluent limit s. The following two assumptions are challenged: **•** The assumption that there is no relationship between treatment influent characterist ics and effluent concentrations **•** The assumption that the ALB data represents enough of a range of deicing, operating and com pliance conditions to be representative of the model technology. Response: See the EPA response to (BAT_PER - BAT) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 75 for more information about how EPA accounted for variable influent by including costs for equalization tanks. The selection of BAT was based on the best available data. Although only one airport AFB system was evaluated in this rulemaking for purposes of deriving the limit, the AFB system used for deriving the limit was representative of perf ormance that could be expected at an airport, provided that the system was designed with that particular performance level in mind. AFB treatment systems are proven technology and have been demonstrated to be successfully employed in various industries. The use of properly designed equalization tanks are adequate to deal with any variability in the influent to the treatment system. See DCN AD01262 for details on AFB application. BAT_RECYCLE - Recycle/recovery technologies as BAT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 11 Ultra - Filtration, Reverse Osmosis, MVR, and Distillation Technologies: Continuing with Page 44687, Section VII, (B), (2) (b) the firm the EPA selected to provide data on the UF/RO membrane technologies has limited ADF treatm ent experience, and utilizes a very unique, combination of OF and RO technologies (ceramic and vibrating membranes, respectively). Most systems do not require (or allow) a 75 degree C (167degree F) operating temperature. In fact, the membranes used by most waste water treatment firms have a maximum operating temperature of 102 to 105 degree F. As such, the claim that high temperature (and potentially high energy) demands are inaccurate. Additionally, the majority of sites that use UF/RO as a means of treati ng ADF are doing so as part of a recycling operation. Therefore, the concentrated glycol stream referenced in this section is being directed to an evaporative and eventually to a distillation process. Section VII, (B), (2) (c), concerns a specific combinat ion of evaporator with a distillation process, mainly, Mechanical Vapor Recompression (MVR). However, there are a number of other evaporative processes that are in use or have been used in the reclamation of ADF/glycols, including Thermal Vapor Recompressi on (TVR), Flash Evaporators, and triple - effect, falling film evaporators. Each have their pros and cons, depending on feed rates, starting concentrations, desired finish concentrations, carryover, energy costs, or available energy sources. The claim that a n MVR is only applied to ADF over 5% concentration is also in error, as the systems can be designed to manage ADF down to 1%, as is the case of the MVR at Salt Lake City International (SLC). However, the improvements in membrane technologies made over the last 10years have made it more economical to utilize an UF/RO system to concentrate the 1 (1% ADF up to a consistent feed level for the MVRITVR , etc. Lastly, the effluent (water) with carryover does not have to go directly to a POTW due to its114 BODICOD lev els, but typically is treated via RO to recover the glycols, and allow for this material to be returned to the recycle process. As such, a UF/RO, Evaporator/Distillation/RO process can be quite effective (efficient) in recovering the glycols from the ADF. Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this information and has made edits to the final TDD to reflect this input. BAT_RECYCLE - Recycle/recovery technologies as BAT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 16 Selection of BAT: Page 44692, Section VII, (E), (2): This section states that the Anaerobic Fluidized Bed (AFB) has been identified as the best available treatment technology for reductions in COD. In addition to the information presented previously (inaccurate comparison of COD removal of AFB ver ses recycle), there are as many or more providers of UF/RO and evaporative equipment and systems as there are AFB. Also consider that the two airports referenced as using AFB technology (ALB, CAK) represent approx. 0.74% of the ADF applied (assuming for th e moment that the data presented by DCN AD01141 is accurate). Looking at the same data set, recycling technologies are being applied at 12 to 17 airports', representing over 50% of the ADF applied. As presented at the opening of this correspondence, EQRR c an account for a large portion (195M - gallons managed, 11 M - gallons PG recycled) of the recycle activities at the referenced US airports. According to correspondence with Inland Technologies International Ltd. it was confirmed that during the same period, they managed over 52 million gallons of ADF/Stormwater 8, resulting in 6M - gallons of recycled glycol. Together, EQRR and Inland Technologies have successfully managed almost 250M - gallons of ADF/Stormwater and reclaimed over 17M - gallons (over 146M - pounds) o f glycols in the US, i.e. recycling technology is readily available and a proven solution. This section presents a biased statement in support of the BAT, by stating that UF/RO and MVR/DC generate a "concentrated waste stream that also must be disposed of. " Previously in the publication, it was determined that the concentrated glycol materials generated by these systems were destined for re - sale as an industrial feedstock or commodity product, which, in our experience, is generally correct. The next stateme nt continues the inaccurate comparison of removal efficiency, "while these technologies have a potential as part of an airport's pollution control strategy, they are not as effective as AFB when used as stand - alone treatment options, ...". Since over 50% o f the estimated annual applied ADF is being managed through recycle, it would appear to be more than just a potential. Lastly, a recycle option can stand - alone, or work in concert with the local POTW, to achieve equal removal efficiencies, but another bene fit of a recycle program is that it does not have to be dedicated to a single source, i.e. an individual airport. Response: First, the final rule does not establish uniform ADF collection or treatment requirements for existing airports. Such discharges w ill continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. Second, for new airports, dischargers may use any technology that allows them to meet the final rule’s new source performance standards applicable to ADF discharges. Third, also for new airport s, EPA has determined that AFB systems are the best available demonstrated control technology for reducing COD levels in the spent ADF. As shown in the record, AFB systems achieve the greatest reduction in pollutants among the technologies considered and are available for widespread use across the industry. It would be of no consequence to these findings even if, as commenter claims, a different control technology may currently be used to a greater extent in the industry. The comment does not contain any information to refute EPA’s finding that the alternative technologies are not as effective as AFB when used as stand - alone treatment options.115 Also see the response to BAT_PERF EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1

– 9 and BAT_AVAIL EPA - HQ OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 4 9 BAT_RECYCLE - Recycle/recovery technologies as BAT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 22 Recycle Systems can be operated intermittently: Page 44697, Section VII, (K), discusses the concerns of including start - up (seasonal) data in the evaluation of limits. It should be noted that most recycling operations do not have start - up conditions from season to season. The processes reach steady state rapidly (usually within 1 - hour) and during that time material is retained/re - circulated/reprocessed until compliance or operational parameters are met. In many cases, the process undergoes multiple start ups and shutdowns (especially at the start of the deicing season). Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 16 for more discussion. BAT_RECYCLE - Recycle/recovery technologies as BAT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 45 Considering the information on TDD Page 8 - 7, Section 8.2 "Treatment and Recycling", "EPA has observed that on - site recycling can be successful and economically viable at airports that collect large enough volumes of high - concentration ADF - contaminated stor mwater." Recycling is also a viable solution at a number of medium and small - hub facilities, and non - hub airports as well. And the largest ADF recycle program in the US utilizes off - site recycle facilities. The requirement that the airport be a high - concen tration airport is also incorrect (see the PIT example above). Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this information and has made edits to the final TDD to reflect this input. Also, see the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment E xcerpt 16 BAT_RECYCLE - Recycle/recovery technologies as BAT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 54 [I]n defense of the recycle/recovery operations summarized in TDD section 9.1.5, (most has been detailed previously) the UF/RO at PIT is used to pro duce an evaporator feedstock as part of a recycle process. 15 The statement "The systems EPA evaluated are both used prior to indirect discharge and have not been demonstrated to sufficiently treat ADF - contaminated stormwater prior to direct discharge." Th e system could produce an effluent capable of direct discharge, however, as presented at the time, it a matter of economics (less costly to send to POTW) and not having access to an outfall. The MVRs (or other evaporators styles mentioned previously) can b e designed for concentrations down to 1%, and are quite adaptive. A system designed to treat a range of ADF (say 7 - 14%) at 20 - gpm feed (producing a 70% material) can be "sped - up" or "slowed - down" based on changes in starting concentration or volume of fee dstock, with or without impacting greatly the product concentration or condensate quality. Example: high volumes (jeopardizing available storage capacity) at 5% ADF has been collected. This system could be operated at 30 - 35 gpm, producing a lower concentra te product; - 50 - 60% (still acceptable for distillation feed) until the backlog is exhausted. Conversely, a lower volume of higher than expected ADF, ex. 20% material, would result in the unit being slowed down to 16 - 18 gpm, to still meet116 condensate quality and the 70% product targets. Such flexibility is not the case for an AFB. Flow rates, residence time, temperature, feed concentration, and effluent quality all must be operated within a tight range. Biological systems are not known for being flexible or f orgiving. Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 16. Additionally, the “lack of flexibility” issue can be addressed adequate equalization prior to treatment. BAT_RECYCLE - Recycle/recovery technologies as BAT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 70 TDD Section 11.3.2.3 reiterates the wrong assumption regarding the ability of a recycle process to direct discharge. It is not a matter of can not, but more economical to treat to a level that is acceptab le to a POTW or having access to a deicing outfall. Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this information and has made edits to the final TDD to reflect this input. Also, see the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 16 B AT_RECYCLE - Recycle/recovery technologies as BAT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 2 EPA fails to acknowledge that there are actually two broad categories of onsite treatment alternatives used in managing aircraft deicing runoff: destructive bio logical treatment and recovery/reuse. In its analysis of treatment alternatives, EPA failed to recognize this important distinction in its evaluation of the relative benefits of available onsite treatment alternatives. As a result, the environmental benefi ts of recovery/reuse of propylene glycol, and the environmental impacts of choosing not to recycle propylene glycol, were ignored. The two specific impacts that EPA should have evaluated in this context are: 1) reduced consumption of petroleum used to prod uce virgin propylene glycol, and 2) life - cycle CO2 emissions. As is described in detail elsewhere in our comments, the life - cycle CO2 emissions for AFB are approximately 15 times greater than for the same volume of deicing runoff processed for glycol recov ery. Recent EPA regulatory actions suggest that CO2 emissions are a significant concern to EPA, and a difference of this magnitude between two treatment alternatives justifies explicit and thorough consideration in the technical analysis and basis for the proposed rule. Response: EPA reviewed at non - water quality impacts for both the options considered for proposal and for the final rule. Additionally, EPA is not aware of any data to suggest that an AFB system produces any more CO2 emissions than any of the technologies that are used to recover recycled glycol. BAT_RECYCLE - Recycle/recovery technologies as BAT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 3 The proposed rule identifies a single model treatment technology that is not necessarily the best, or even applicable across the full range of deicing runoff concentrations that might need to be treated onsite at an airport. Deicing runoff is typically col lected across a wide range of concentrations to achieve overall collection objectives. It is common practice to separate and manage collected runoff in different117 concentration fractions to optimize collection operations and the use of available treatment a lternatives. ACRP Report #14 (ACRP, 2009) provides the following generalized operating principles to which we have added relevant commentary: • Highest concentration fraction (i.e., >3% glycol, or >11,250 mg/L BOD5) is well suited to recycling, which often includes an onsite component. Airports typically strive to collect as much runoff as possible in this highest concentration range to reduce storage and handling requirements and facilitate recycling options. Optimum operation of the proposed model collect ion technologies will generate collected runoff in this range, and require a treatment technology that can handle higher influent concentrations. Recycling is ideally suited to this need. • Middle concentration fraction (i.e., approximately 1,000

– 30,000 mg/L BOD5) may be treated onsite via a variety of technologies, including membrane filtration to support recycling (as is used at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) and Bradley International Airport (BDL)) for the upper end of the range, or anae robic or aerobic biological treatment by various technologies, including AFB, moving bed bioreactors and natural treatment systems for the lower end of the range. Response: First, the final rule does not establish uniform ADF collection or treatment requ irements for existing airports. Such discharges will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. In addition, for new airports, EPA did not select recycle/recovery as the technology basis for numeric COD limits in the new source performance standards. However, the NSPS regulations do not preclude the use of recycle/recovery of collected glycol in order to meet the numeric COD limits. See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 16 for more discussion. Also s ee response to 1215.1 - 8. BAT_RECYCLE - Recycle/recovery technologies as BAT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 6 Similarly, just because an implementation of onsite recycling with direct discharge was not identified by EPA does not mean that it is n’t feasible, acceptable, or economically practical, only that conditions favored another approach to discharge of the effluent at airports where recycling has been implemented. Commonly, for example, it is far easier for an airport to obtain an industrial pretreatment permit for discharges to a sanitary sewer than to modify its NPDES permit to add a new pollutant source. Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this information and has made edits to final TDD to reflect this input. See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 16 BAT_RECYCLE - Recycle/recovery technologies as BAT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 8 Several technologies examined by EPA provide the potential ability to discharge treated deicing stormwa ter to surface waters. ACRP Report #14 Deicing Planning Guidelines and Practices for Stormwater Management Systems presents information on proven onsite treatment technologies for deicing runoff (ACRP, 2009). In Table 3 - 3 of that document, every other trea tment technology is shown to have a range of effluent BOD5 concentrations lower than AFB. Thus, if effluent from an AFB is capable of being discharged to surface waters, then so would the effluent from any of the other listed technologies. Moreover, most o f these other technologies have been used successfully by at least as many airports as the AFB technology.118 Response: EPA evaluated all technology options available for treatment of ADF stormwater, including those listed in Table 3 - 3 of the ACRP Report #1 4 Deicing Planning Guidelines and Practices for Stormwater Management Systems (anaerobic fluidized bed reactor, reciprocating subsurface treatment, moving bed bioreactor, sequencing batch reactor, natural treatment systems, membrane filtration, glycol reco very). For NSPS, EPA selected AFB as the technology basis for COD numeric limits because it has high levels of pollutant removal, is available and demonstrated, and is technologically achievable and does not present a barrier to entry. See section 5.3 of the final rule preamble and section 11.3 in the TDD. EPA’s sampling data shows that the AFB system had the highest levels of pollutant reductions. Additionally, when looking at table 3 - 3 in the above referenced document, only two other technologies had c omparable influent concentrations, an anaerobic POTW, and membrane filtration. However, membrane filtration simply separates clean water from the deicing materials. After that separation, you must then dispose of the concentrated waste stream, at an adde d expense. While recycling of glycol is an option, EPA was unable to support the assumption that all airports would recycle this waste stream, and therefore EPA would have to include additional costs for disposal of this waste. . Also, EPA has not set PS ES or PSNS on discharges to POTWs. BAT_RECYCLE - Recycle/recovery technologies as BAT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 10 Section 13.1 of the TDD states (emphasis added): “EPA selected AFB treatment as the basis for BAT. The other three wastewater treatment technologies that EPA considered (UF/RO, MVR/distillation, and aerobic biological treatment ponds) were less effective a t pollutant removal compared to AFB systems and are described in Section 8.2. In addition, treating spent ADF with the mechanical methods, UF/RO and MVR/distillation results in a concentrated waste stream that also must be disposed of. While these technolo gies have potential as a part of an airport's pollutant control strategy, they are not as effective as AFB when used as stand - alone treatment options, i.e. the pollutant removals they achieve are not as great as the removals achieved by AFB systems.” In Se ction 9.2.4 of the TDD EPA states, “Based on EPA’s sampling data from ALB, COD was reduced by greater than 97 percent, BOD5 was reduced by greater than 98 percent, and glycol was reduced by greater than 99 percent (ERG, 2007).” We believe that EPA’s statem ent is not supported by the facts. For example, operating data from the glycol recycling facility at BDL was compiled for the period between December 2008 and January 2010. Table 2 presents a summary of these data, a full listing of which is included as At tachment A to these comments. [See submittal for Attachment A: BDL on - site facility data listing.] Table 2. Summary of performance data for the glycol recycling facility at BDL. The BDL onsite treatment facility was not designed for discharge to surface wa ters. In spite of that, the data demonstrate that the facility is removing more than 96.6% of COD and 97.8% of glycols 90% of the time over a much wider range of influent concentrations than the AFB technology at ALB. More than 80% of the effluent COD conc entrations are below EPA’s proposed daily maximum standard in the proposed rule. This is just one example of an existing onsite recycling facility that, even though not designed for direct discharge, produces effluent quality that is within the range of ef fluent quality that EPA identified with BAT. It is recommended that EPA collect and evaluate additional information on a full range of established recycling facilities to gain a more complete and accurate understanding of the performance of onsite recyclin g technology. Response: The data provided for Bradley International Airport (BDL) represent effluent from a treatment technology used in combination with recycle/recovery of glycol. As noted by the commenter, EPA evaluated treatment technologies as stan d - alone treatment options. The record shows that AFB treatment, when evaluated as a stand - alone treatment, has been demonstrated to remove a greater percentage of COD than119 the recycle/recovery technologies also evaluated by EPA. Additionally, the facilit y recycle system at Bradley is contingent on having a third party who will recycle the concentrated waste stream. As EPA is unable to support an assumption that all new airports will have recycling available, after the Bradley treatment system, a concentr ated wastestream remains for treatment/disposal. See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 16 and comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 excerpt 8 for more discussion. Additionally, EPA was unable to support the assumption that all airports would be able to recycle their glycol waste stream, and in those instances, and airport would incur costs to dispose of the concentrated waste stream. BAT_RECYCLE - Recycle/recovery technologies as BAT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 15 The economics of recovering and recycling glycol as a method for treating deicing runoff are misrepresented. EPA chose AFB as BAT based on the assertion that “the pollutant removals they (MVR/Distillation and Reverse Osmosis) achieve are not as great as the removals achieved by AFB systems”. Cost was not listed as a reason for choosing AFB. However, in their discussion of BAT, EPA stated “the factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions”, thereby maki ng it necessary to challenge any inaccurate cost assumptions that could have led EPA to reject MVR/Distillation as the BAT. Response: For new sources, EPA did not reject MVR/Distillation or any other recycle/recovery technology as the basis for COD efflue nt limits on the basis of economics and EPA wishes to encourage both the reduction of ADF use through pollution prevention practices and the recovery of ADF glycol when it is safe, appropriate, and cost effective. As such, EPA's final regulation does not p reclude the use of pollution prevention practices or recycle/recovery technologies in achieving compliance with the final rule. See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 16 for more discussion. BAT_RECYCLE - Recycle/recove ry technologies as BAT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 20 EPA failed to understand that glycol recovery vehicles routinely collect a relatively high concentration glycol runoff that is ideally suited to recycling. EPA’s portrayal of the potent ial for recycling is misrepresented in TDD Figure 11 - 2, Diagram Showing the Alternatives for Developing Treatment System Costs by the Airport Deicing Cost Model. This figure is inaccurate/incomplete because it ignores proven and cost - effective options of sending runoff from glycol recovery vehicle collection to any type of glycol recovery. As an example, glycol recovery vehicles are used exclusively for deicing runoff collection at Gerald R. Ford International Airport (GRR) in Grand Rapids, MI, and 100% o f the collected runoff is processed for glycol recycling. Other examples include PVD, IAD and DCA. As a result of its failure to fully understand the applicability of recycling, EPA is misleading airports that would be required to collect at the 20% leve l that recycling is not feasible where glycol recovery vehicle collection is employed. Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform ADF collection or discharge requirement for spent ADF as part of the BAT requirements. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site - specific BPJ basis. For new airports, the information in this comment does not change EPA’s conclusion that CDPs are the best available demonstrated control technology for NSPS purposes rather than recycle technologies or120 GRVs. Nonetheless, nothing in the final regulation precludes the use of recycle/recovery technologies in achieving compliance with the final rule. EPA agrees with the commenter that Glycol Collection Vehicles may be used for collection of ADF contaminated storm water that is then sent to glycol recycle/recovery. For more discussion of the selection of BAT, see the EPA response to comment EPA HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 16. BAT_RECYCLE - Recycle/recovery technologies as BAT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 200 4 - 0038 - 1219.1 - 5 NATA’s reading of the NPRM language does not lead the association to believe that there are any provisions prohibiting the recycling (as opposed to treating and discharging) of collected glycol. However, NATA asks that the EPA further add ress the appropriateness of glycol recycling in the NPRM preamble to prevent any confusion. Response: EPA’s final rule does not preclude the use of recycle/recovery of collected glycol. See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 16, and 1215.1 #20 (above) for more discussion. BAT_RECYCLE - Recycle/recovery technologies as BAT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1223.1 - 6 We note that the chemical company Clariant claims its “EcoTain deicer fluid recycling management system offers an ecological, economical and sustainable solution to the removal and re - use of aircraft run off.”9 [FOOTNOTE: 9 http://www.evaint.com/daily - news/3012/Clariant - introduces - unique - EcoTain deicer - recycling - con cept - .aspx] The Clariant process allows onsite recycling and reuse of deicer, which the company claims has saved Munich International Airport $1.36 Million Dollars per season while capturing for on - site reuse 60 - 70% of glycol per season. According to Clari ant, the on - site concept covers the collection of run - off in suitable storage facilities, followed by a recycling process which involves mechanical cleaning (removal of, for example, precipitates, fuel and oil), chemical cleaning (for ready - to use anti - ici ng/deicing fluid (ADF) only), evaporation of excess water and glycol distillation, and final processing with the addition of a Clariant ADF additive package. The recycled fluid is then stored on - site for future use. Zurich International Airport, meanwhile, processes its recaptured glycol off site, Clariant’s off - site recycling concept is used by Zurich International Airport to reduce disposal costs with minimal equipment investment. The fluid is collected following the deicing operation, taken through an on - site pre - concentration process to mechanically filter the fluid and evaporate the water to a final glycol content of approximately 60%, before it is transported for final processing into industrial grade glycol. The glycol is reused in different industria l applications or recycled for further ADF production. If Clariant’s claims are legitimate, and large - scale deicing can save money, than we think even less of the economic concessions the EPA has made in this rule proposal and request they EPA require more than 60% for ALL commercial airports. Response: See the response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1219.1 excerpt 5. Also, at this time EPA has insufficient data to support the technology described by the commenter as a basis for BAT or NSPS.121 BAT_RECYCLE - Recy cle/recovery technologies as BAT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 78 This range has implications for identification of the technologies considered as BAT and EPA’s cost analysis. EPA should consider this COD concentration range in assigning BAT and understand that systems that need to treat runoff outside of those ranges need different technologies. For example, for concentrations greater than 128,000 mg/L COD (approximately 8% propylene glycol) recycling technologies such as evaporation systems would be more appropriate. Those non - AFB technologies may have performance capabilities that differ from the AFB systems, including different capabilities for achieving effluent COD concentrations, which EPA should assess when proposing effluent limits. E PA also should consider the implications of this range of AFB capabilities on the cost analysis, especially for systems processing large quantities of deicer and systems that must collect runoff from vary large areas. The cost per pound of COD and per gall on used by EPA from extrapolation of the ALB and CAK data is not appropriate for systems needing to treat COD concentrations outside of the AFB range. Response: Although EPA did not select recycle/recovery as the basis for BAT, the final NSPS rule does not preclude the use of recycle/recovery of collected glycol. See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 16 for more discussion. BAT_START_UP - BAT performance – start up Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 111 Performance Degradation During Start - Up EPA has recognized that AFBR reactors will be operated as semi - continuous batch treatment systems. The units will be placed into operation when a sufficient volume of stormwater has been collected to sustain operatio n of the reactor for a sufficient period of time. During system start up, effluent concentrations, as evidenced by the CAK start - up data, are likely to be higher and more variable as the bacteria acclimate to the influent compared to periods of continuous operation. Further, frequent changes in influent COD loading will result in increased effluent COD variability as the bacteria respond to changing conditions. Thus, continuous operations with limited variability will produce more stable effluent. Unfortuna tely, because influent concentrations and load are governed to a large extent by weather, the system operator has limited ability to respond to these changing conditions and can only adjust influent flow rate to minimize impacts on effluent quality. These limited system adjustments are further constrained by system design parameters (i.e., hydraulic limitations). To minimize frequent start/stop operations, an airport may elect to collect stormwater until sufficient quantities are available to provide for lo ng run times. However, as observed at CAK, the degradation of ADF within the storage system can significantly increase the duration of start - up periods as well as effluent concentration and effluent variability.309 [FOOTNOTE:309 Arendt T. and J. Prior, ACI NA/ATA/RAA Deicing Management Conference, Akron - Canton Airport Deicer Management System North Canton, OH (July 8 2009).] Both the model airport, ALB and CAK have sufficient deicing events (21.9 to 41 SOFP days) such that the AFBR system start - up can be li mited to a single period. However, a number of airports which have less frequent deicing events are also assumed to install AFBR to treat collected stormwater. Thus, the airport operator is faced either with storing water for long periods until sufficient volume has been collected to provide for long run times (thereby risking issues associated with fluid degradation) or engaging in frequent start/stop operations with their associated increased effluent variability.310 [FOOTNOTE:310 Arend, T. and J. Prior, 2009.] Either mode of operation will result in higher effluent variability and will cause well - operated systems to exceed the proposed effluent122 limitations. For the reasons stated above, ATA believes that the Agency must re - compute its proposed BAT efflue nt limitations for aircraft deicing discharges to reflect these variables so that any final ELG contains effluent limitations that reasonably reflect the model technology’s capacity to perform across the range of airports to which the Rule will apply. Re sponse: EPA no longer requires collection and treatment of spent ADF as part of the BAT requirements, and as such this comment is no longer applicable. With respect to the NSPS, EPA acknowledges that AFB treatment systems require time to reach a stabile, "steady state" operating condition from start - up. Airports will need to assess their projected ADF usage, winter weather patterns, and storage needs in designing a system. EPA has also implemented an NSPS cut - off into the final rule, such that new source s with little anticipated deicing activities are not subject to the collection/control requirements. Thus, new sources anticipated to have less available ADF in the proposed rule are no longer covered by the collection/control requirements in the final rul e. EPA’s determination of the COD effluent limitation included data from start up periods of the ALB system. By retaining start - up data for development of the limitations, these limitations will be achievable because EPA based them on typical treatment dur ing the entire season. Once the treatment system reaches steady state, EPA expects a typical well - designed and operated system to run continuously until the end of the deicing season. BAT_START_UP - BAT performance – start up Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 20 04 - 0038 - 1241.1 - 18 At the beginning of the deicing season, we try to build up a stable microorganism population as quickly as possible to meet our water quality based limits. To accomplish this, we feed the AFB system more load than it can fully treat to help the population grow. Because we feed our AFB system with more load than it can consume, the effluent concentrations during start up are often higher than during normal operation. Since the proposed rule has no means for accounting for higher effluent concentrations during start up periods, we will be forced us to start up our AFB system more slowly than our current operations. This will result in a longer period to achieve treatment capacity, increasing our compliance risk, and ultimately potentially driving the need for additional storage to ensure compliance with water quality based limits. Additional storage at CAK was not included in EPA’s economic analysis. CAK recommends that EPA include provisions in the rule or in the guidance to permit writers to except effluent concentrations that exceed effluent limits from compliance during startup periods such that startup can be achieved as quickly as possible. If such an exception is not granted, we may be forced to add storage. Additional storage costs f or CAK were not included in EPA’s analysis. Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 111. (above) BAT_VAR - BAT limitations – variability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208 - 6 (PHL Airport) Due to historically documented variances in the weather at northern - tier airports (i.e., number of storms, type of storms and precipitation, total inches precipitation per winter), EPA should allow for anomalies such as a significantly severe winter in det ermining whether an airport falls into the higher (currently123 60%) or lower (currently 20%) collection category. This includes whether annual data or a three - year or five - year average, etc., is used to determine collection requirements. For example, at Phil adelphia International Airport, the normalized aircraft deicing fluid available for recovery would be just below the proposed 60% collection threshold last winter (2008 - 2009), and below it in four of the last five winter seasons. However, due to the severe weather in winter 2006 - 2007, the three year average, if that were to be used, would be just at the 60%collection threshold. One suggested method would be to use the last five years of annual data, drop the low and high amounts and average the remaining th ree amounts. It is NOT recommended that a one year data source be used. It is also not clear whether "bypass/upset condition" caveats will be included in the final ELGs, wherein an airport would not be penalized for non - compliance if all BMPs were utilized but compliance was not achieved during an unusually severe storm. Similarly, how will retention in a collection category be handled? It is highly possible that one year an airport may fall in the 60% category while the next year in the 20% category, or vi ce versa. There are many variables that may effect this condition, some of which were stated above (i.e., weather). However, there are national and global economic conditions which may impact the operational activities, and thereby reduce the ADF applied, of any one airport (i.e. recessionary issues, fuel costs, politics, bankruptcy, etc.). Should an airport invest multi - million dollars in capital improvements, only to be impacted by an economic downturn, the cost of that improvement would be shifted to th e remaining airlines, passengers or municipalities, thereby causing an increased financial burden on all parties. Response: Because of issues relating to the operational constraints at existing airports, EPA has decided not to require a uniform effluent l imitation for collection or treatment of ADF as BAT in this rule. Additionally, in the final rule, ADF usage does not affect applicability for NSPS. BAT_VAR - BAT limitations – variability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1219.1 - 2 (NATA) NATA is not suggesting that stormwater runoff from de - icing activities does not pose an environmental concern. Rather, NATA is suggesting that the EPA’s one - size - fits - all approach to solving these concerns is not feasible as a nationwide standard. NATA bel ieves that due to the complexity and vast local variation among individual airport operations, solutions to the environmental concerns resulting from d icing runoff can be more efficiently developed on a case - by - case basis through cooperation between airpo rt sponsors, airport users and permitting authorities. Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that none of the ADF collection technologies considered for today’s final rule represents the best available technology for the entire group of existing airpor ts in the category. The final rule BAT only requires discontinuing the use of urea for airfield pavement deicing, while determinations for aircraft deicing will continue to be made on a site - specific basis. The BAT urea requirement is economically achiev able, based on information in the rulemaking record and discussed in the preamble. BAT_VAR - BAT limitations – variability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 27 (ATA) Failure to Address Adequately Sources of Variability In developing the effluen t limitations, EPA utilized 10 years of monitoring data from reactors R101 and R102 at ALB and analyzed each reactor independently. For the daily limit, EPA calculated the 99th percentile daily value for each reactor and124 established the median of the two r esults as the daily maximum discharge limitation. For the weekly limit, EPA used exactly the same procedure, but used the 97th percentile value. This approach fails to recognize and address adequately variability associated with the season and the individu al reactor. As noted above, EPA used ten years of monitoring data to make these calculations. EPA acknowledges that this data “had substantial variability between years.”81 In addition, statistical analysis of the data indicated that “effluent data appear to have periods with relatively little daily variation and periods with significant daily variation,” and “suggest[s] that there is a statistical relationship between the influent and effluent measurements.”82 Unfortunately, the analysis failed to consider the effect of influent COD loading on effluent concentration. Specifically, AFB systems are operated to maintain constant loads. Thus, while influent concentrations may vary, the operators attempt to hold influent loads relatively constant through the adj ustment of flow. Thus, it is not surprising that a statistically significant relationship between influent and effluent concentration was not identified. However, none of this was taken into account in the derivation of the proposed ADF Treatment Standard. The ALB data, specifically data from seasons in which loading was the highest, requires that it must be taken into account. For example, the influent COD loads for the 2002 season were significantly higher than were loads for the other seasons. The averag e daily influent load for the 2002 - 2003 season was 47% higher than the average daily load for all seasons and the average load for the 2002 - 2003 season was 2.65 times higher than the lowest loading season (2006 - 2007). Calculation of the 99th percentile dai ly maximum concentration based on the 2002 season results in a limit of 362 mg/L as SCOD. This is a 33% increase above the proposed limitation. Given this difference at ALB, the ADF Treatment Standard should be re - evaluated to account for the impact of sev ere winters and operational periods when the system was operated at, or near, system design capacity. Certainly, deicing operations along the East Coast for the 2009 - 2010 deicing season will be substantially increased compared to previous deicing seasons, and these increased loads and increased influent concentrations might be expected to impact AFB performance. The variability in deicing and potential influent concentrations is also likely to occur within the same season at the same airport (e.g., light fr eezing rain conditions versus light snow), between seasons (severe winters versus light winters) and between airports. The effect of winter severity on AFB operations should be considered and the use of longer - term limitations (e.g., weekly or monthly limi tations as opposed to a daily maximum limit) should be evaluated. In the design of airport stormwater treatment systems, detailed information is gathered regarding weather intensity, storm event frequency and severity, and volume of impacted stormwater pro duced at an airport to allow integration of all system components (storage, equalization and treatment) and calculation of optimal system sizing. EPA’s limited analysis of data from a single airport AFB system fails to recognize the effect of weather on sy stem performance. Recognition of the effect of weather and type of collection technology employed on system design is critical in the establishment of limitations. As noted above, ALB utilizes two AFB reactors for the treatment of stormwater impacted by de icing operations. Influent for each reactor is drawn from the same pond and the units are typically operated in parallel. However, derivation of the 99th percentile for the two reactors results in drastically different values (326 versus 216 mg/L). EPA dea lt with this difference by taking the median value. However, the reasons for the differences are not known. Although both reactors draw from the same influent pond and thus have similar, if not identical, influent concentrations, effluent concentrations fo r the two reactors are significantly different with reactor R101 achieving a slightly lower average discharge concentration. Further, when only 2002 data are evaluated, reactor R101 is significantly higher in concentration than reactor R102. EPA attributes these differences to “slightly different influents, equipment and other factors.”83 By utilizing data from both reactors, EPA acknowledges that both reactors are being operated diligently. Thus, use of the mean 99th or 97th percentile value for the two re actors fails to acknowledge that diligent operation of an AFBR can result in 50 percent higher percentile value. The use of the median of the two 99th or 97th percentile values for the reactors at ALB to establish ADF Treatment Standards obscures the fact that the performance of the two reactors differ by 110 mg S COD/L (the difference between the 99th percentiles calculated for the ALB reactors). Since it is implied that both reactors are operated diligently, then it is the data from the less - well performi ng unit on which EPA should base its BAT limit.125 Response: See the response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, excerpt 109. BAT_VAR - BAT limitations – variability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 29 The higher influent concentrations at CAK resulted in a higher effluent concentration. Second, there is significant variability between the two CAK reactors (although both received similar if not identical influents). The imposition of more restrictive limits on CAK (based on ALB performance) may require CAK to operate at a lower loading thereby increasing storage requirements (e.g., to comply with the limit, the water must be treated at a lower rate). Put another way, using data from just one of two extant plants already puts the second plant, whi ch EPA would likely agree is a state of the art AFBR, out of compliance. Further, because the root cause of the variability between reactors is not known (and apparently not controllable), the effluent limitation should be based on the higher of the two li mitations. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing facilities. However, EPA chose not to include data from the CAK system in the analysis for the NSPS contained in the final rule. For more information, see the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, excerpt 110 in comment code BAT_PER. Also see response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1

– 27. BAT_VAR - BAT limitations – variability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 30 Performance Degradation During Start - Up EPA has recognized that the AFB reactors will be operated as semi - continuous batch treatment systems. The units will be placed into operation when a sufficient volume of stormwater has been collected to sustain operation of the reactor for a sufficient period of time. During system start - up, effluent concentrations, as evidenced by the CAK start - up data, are likely to be higher and more variable as the bacteria acclimate to the influent compared to periods of co ntinuous operation. Further, frequent changes in influent COD loading will result in increased effluent COD variability as the bacteria respond to changing conditions. Thus, continuous operations with limited variability will produce more stable effluent. Unfortunately, because influent concentrations and load are governed to a large extent by weather, the system operator has limited ability to respond to these changing conditions and can only adjust influent flow rate to minimize impacts on effluent qualit y. These limited system adjustments are further constrained by system design parameters (i.e., hydraulic limitations). To minimize frequent start/stop operations, an airport may elect to collect stormwater until sufficient quantities are available to provi de for long run times. However, as observed at CAK, the degradation of ADF within the storage system can significantly increase the duration of start - up periods as well as effluent concentration and variability.84 [FOOTNOTE:84 Arendt, T. and J. Prior. July 8 2009. ACI NA/ATA/RAA Deicing Management Conference. Akron - Canton Airport Deicer Management System North Canton, Ohio] (“New Source Performance Standards”). 87 Proposed § 449.2 (“New source”).] The model airport, ALB, as well as CAK, have sufficient deic ing events (21.9 to 41 SOFP days) such that the AFB system start - up can be limited to a single period. However, a number of airports which have less frequent deicing events are also assumed to install AFB reactors to treat collected stormwater. Thus, the a irport operator is faced with either storing water for long periods until sufficient volume has been collected to provide for long run times (thereby risking issues associated with fluid degradation) or allow for frequent start/stop operations with associa ted increased variability.85 [FOOTNOTE:85 Arendt, T. and J. Prior. 2009.] Either mode of operation will result in higher effluent variability and increased potential126 for exceedances of the limitation. For the reasons stated above, ATA believes that the Age ncy must re compute its proposed BAT effluent limitations for aircraft deicing discharges to reflect these variables so that any final ELG contains effluent limitations that reasonably reflect the model technology’s capacity to perform across the range of airports to which the Rule will apply. Response: See the EPA response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, excerpt 75 in comment code BAT_PER for more information. Also see response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1

– 29. BAT_VAR - BAT limitations – vari ability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 109 Failure to Address Adequately Sources of Variability In developing the effluent limitations, EPA utilized 10 years of monitoring data from reactors R101 and R102 at ALB and analyzed each reactor indep endently. For the daily limit, EPA calculated the 99th percentile daily value for each reactor and established the median of the two results as the daily maximum discharge limitation. For the weekly limit, EPA used exactly the same procedure, but used the 97th percentile value. This approach fails to recognize and address adequately variability associated with the season and the individual reactor. As noted above, EPA used 10 years of monitoring data to make these calculations. EPA acknowledges that this da ta “had substantial variability between years.”306 In addition, statistical analysis of the data indicated that “effluent data appear to have periods with relatively little daily variation and periods with significant daily variation,” and “suggest[s] that there is a statistical relationship between the influent and effluent measurements.”307 [FOOTNOTE:307 Document - 1155 (emphasis added). We note that this relationship was found to be insignificant after the removal of 140 outliers and data between reactors was combined. We also note that EPA’s consultant failed to derive a reliable model to predict the relationship between weather, departures and influent COD concentrations indicating that the failure resulted from the lack of a “moderately strong” statisti cal relationship. Document - 1155 at 11. The consultant’s failure to derive a reliable model based on COD influent concentration as well as their failure to consider the effect of influent load does not demonstrate no such relationship exists, especially in the face of data (e.g., 2002 - 03) that indicates there is a strong relationship. Certainly, the failure to derive a model for one airport does not demonstrate that the relationship does not exist and cannot excuse the failure to take it into account.] Unfo rtunately, the analysis failed to consider the effect of influent COD loading on effluent concentration. Specifically, AFBR systems are operated to maintain constant loads. Thus, while influent concentrations may vary, the operators attempt to hold influen t loads relatively constant through the adjustment of flow. It therefore is not surprising that a statistically significant relationship between influent and effluent concentration was not identified. It is the relationship between influent load and efflue nt concentration that EPA should have been looking for. However, none of this was taken into account in the derivation of the proposed ADF Treatment Standard. The ALB data, specifically data from seasons in which loading was the highest, makes it clear why the relationship between influent load and effluent concentration must be taken into account. Influent COD loads for the 2002 season were significantly higher than were loads for the other seasons. The average daily influent load for the 2002 - 2003 season was 47% higher than the average daily load for all seasons and the average load for the 2002 - 2003 season was 2.65 times higher than the lowest loading season (2006 - 2007). Calculation of the 99th percentile daily maximum concentration based on the 2002 seas on results in a limit of 362 mg/L as SCOD. This is a 33% increase above the proposed limitation. Given this difference at ALB, the ADF Treatment Standard should be re - evaluated to account for the impact of severe winters and operational periods when the sy stem was operated at or near system design capacity as defined by load. Certainly, deicing operations along the East Coast for the 2009/2010 deicing season will be substantially increased compared to previous deicing seasons, and these increased loads and increased influent concentrations might be expected to impact AFBR performance. The variability in deicing and potential influent127 concentrations is also likely to occur within the same season at the same airport (e.g., light freezing rain conditions versus light snow), between seasons (severe winters versus light winters) and between airports. The effect of winter severity on AFBR operations should be considered and the use of longer - term limitations (e.g., weekly or monthly limitations as opposed to a dail y maximum limit) should be evaluated. In the design of airport stormwater treatment systems, detailed information is gathered regarding weather intensity, storm event frequency and severity, and volume of impacted stormwater produced at an airport to allow integration of all system components (storage, equalization and treatment) and calculation of optimal system sizing. EPA’s limited analysis of data from a single airport AFBR system fails to recognize the effect of weather on system performance. Recogniti on of the effect of weather and type of collection technology employed on system design is critical in the establishment of limitations. In addition, and as noted above, Albany utilizes two AFBR reactors for the treatment of stormwater impacted by deicing operations. Influent for each reactor is drawn from the same pond and the units are typically operated in parallel. However, derivation of the 99th percentile for the two reactors results in drastically different values (326 vs. 216 mg/L). EPA dealt with t his difference by taking the median value. However, the reasons for the differences are not known. Although both reactors draw from the same influent pond and thus have similar, if not identical, influent concentrations, effluent concentrations for the two reactors are significantly different, with reactor R101 achieving a slightly lower average discharge concentration. Further, when only 2002 data are evaluated, reactor R101 is significantly higher in concentration than reactor R102. EPA attributes these d ifferences to “slightly different influents, equipment and other factors.”308 By utilizing data from both reactors, however, EPA acknowledges that both reactors are being operated diligently. Thus, use of the mean 99th or 97th percentile value for the two reactors fails to acknowledge that diligent operation of an AFBR can result in 50% higher percentile value. The use of the median of the two 99th or 97th percentile values for the reactors at ALB to establish ADF Treatment Standards obscures the fact that the performance of the two reactors differ by 110 mg S COD/L (the difference between the 99th percentiles calculated for the ALB reactors). Since it is implied that both reactors are well - operated, it is the data from the less - well performing unit on which EPA should base its BAT limit. Response: First, the commenter notes that EPA’s consultant did not derive a reliable model to predict the relationship between weather, departures, and influent COD concentrations. The commenter also states that the analy sis failed to consider the effect of influent COD loading on effluent concentration, when it is the relationship between influent load and effluent concentration that EPA should have been looking for. EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that EPA f ailed to find a reliable model for the relationship between weather, departures, and influent COP concentrations. EPA did consider a number of models for this relationship; however, no significant relationship was found from these models. EPA would expec t to find a model suggesting a significant relationship between weather and influent concentrations if there was truly a moderately strong relationship between these variables. It is unlikely that further work would result in an improved model of the rela tionship between weather, departures, and influent concentrations. Second, the commenter states that EPA pooled the data from 10 seasons in setting the limit, without accounting for any differences that may exist between seasons. EPA’s decision to pool t he data over 10 seasons is reasonable; if differences between seasons increase, then the 99 th percentile for the data across all seasons will increase. This shows that EPA’s approach to setting the limit takes into account seasonal variation. By setting the limit using the 99 th percentile, EPA has a high degree of confidence that a well operated system will meet the NSPS, taking into account all variability in performance. Third, the commenter notes that the limits were set by taking the median of the rel evant percentiles (99 th for daily and 97 th for weekly limits) for the two reactors at Albany. By doing this, EPA is acknowledging that both reactors were well - operated, so the commenter states that EPA should use the data from the less128 well - performing rea ctor to set the BAT limit. EPA disagrees with the commenter’s suggestion that the limit should be based on the less well performing reactor. EPA has set the limit as the median of the percentiles from both well - performing reactors, because looking across the performance of all well - perfuming systems takes into account relevant performance, rather than excluding that performance. The manner EPA uses to set an NSPS effluent limit results in a limit that appropriately accounts for variability at well - operat ed systems and is consistent with procedures used in setting the limits for effluent guidelines. See the Final TDD for additional details on the calculation of the numeric limit. Additionally, EPA contacted Albany Airport staff to discuss operations of th e AFB system, specifically in regards to effluent concentrations. An Albany representative stated that if the equalization and treatment system is designed correctly, like Albany, then an increase in influent loadings will not cause effluent concentration s to increase. The design loadings of the system are between 6 kg/m 3 and 25 kg/m 3 (6,000 mg/L - 25,000 mg/l) and Albany has not had an issue staying within those parameters. The Albany representative also stated that while they have never had an issue of overloading the capacity of the treatment system, there have been times where the COD influent concentrations have been unusually low, and in those cases they dramatically increased the flow rate into the system. This contingency was anticipated in the sy stem design, however, and there is sufficient hydraulic capacity for these events. BAT_VAR - BAT limitations – variability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 53 (PA NY&NJ) The EPA did not provide any discussion of the effects of widely differing aircraft fleet mixes, aircraft use, aircraft deicing fluid use, intermittent/sporadic use of the system, and weather conditions on aircraft deicing fluid treatment systems. Response : EPA acknowledges that a number of factors affect aircraft deicing fluid treatment systems. See the EPA response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, excerpt 75 in comment code BAT_PER for more information. BAT_VAR - BAT limitations – variability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 74 (ACI - NA) Influent Soluble COD Loading Rates Impact the Effluent Concentrations from an AFB Treatment System Under Certain Critical Circumstances. On page 14 - 5 of the TDD for the Proposed Rule, EPA concludes that a well - o perated and designed AFB treatment system should be capable of treating deicer runoff to a narrow range of effluent concentrations despite variation in influent COD concentrations. In drawing this conclusion, EPA determined that influent COD concentrations do not directly affect effluent concentrations for an AFB treatment system. However, this determination is only correct under a limited set of operational circumstances. EPA neglected to fully assess the relationship between influent loading rate (pounds of COD/day) and effluent COD concentration. This oversight resulted in the establishment of proposed effluent COD limit values that are lower than an appropriate analysis of the available AFB system data supports. The relationship between influent COD load and effluent COD concentration is critical in the design and operation of AFB systems. In assessing this relationship, EPA must recognize that the COD load is the mass of materials contributing to COD that pass into treatment in a given time129 period (e.g., pounds of COD per day). COD load is calculated by multiplying COD concentration by the flow rate. If a constant COD load is desired when COD concentrations are variable, any increase in concentration must be offset by a proportional decrease in flow rate. The AFB systems at ALB, CAK, PDX, and many industrial operations are designed to operate at a near constant influent COD load. Operation at a near constant influent COD load is desirable because it results in a more stable bacterial population, improving the treatment efficiency and increasing the predictability of system effluent. Increasing operational predictability decreases the risk of non - compliance. Operating AFB systems to treat collected deicer runoff in an aviation setting, as opposed to treatmen t in other industrial settings, requires additional control measures to achieve near constant COD load because of the wide fluctuation in COD influent concentrations. The controls are designed so that influent COD concentrations are measured on an ongoing basis and the flow rates influent to treatment are adjusted to achieve the desired COD load. The variation in the influent collected COD concentrations is often too great to achieve constant COD simply with storage based equalization.60 [Footnote 60: Note that EPA’s assumption that the CAK storage tanks perform a significant equalization function is generally incorrect because of the flow control required. While some equalization will occur in storage, the primary means of equalization is through flow rate management. Airports must monitor COD concentrations in the influent and modify pump or valve settings to adjust the flow rate. The frequency that they need to measure CODs and adjust flows is airport specific.] The COD load that an airport selects for ope ration is dependent upon several factors. One of the most important factors is the available storage capacity. When storage capacity is limited, an airport may choose to operate at a higher loading to achieve faster draw down of the volume in the storage s tructures in response to day to day weather and deicing conditions. Review of the influent and effluent COD data from the ALB AFB treatment system on a season - by - season basis reveals that on an average seasonal basis, the influent COD loadings to the ALB r eactors varied significantly over the nine seasons of influent data that is available (from 3,279 lbs COD per day to 8,865 lbs COD per day). ALB presumably operated with different loadings in different seasons as needed to meet their operational and compli ance needs. It is likely that most AFB systems applied at airports would also have variable average seasonal influent loadings as the airports respond to variable deicing conditions. When the COD influent loading data at ALB is compared to the COD effluent concentrations at ALB, a relationship between COD loading and COD effluent concentrations emerges. In particular, when the average influent COD loading is well below the COD loading capacity of the AFB reactors, the average seasonal effluent concentration s are lower. When the average COD influent loading is close to the COD loading capacity of the reactors, the effluent concentrations are higher. The results of the season - by - season data analysis at ALB are shown in the figure below. The graph plots the ave rage seasonal influent COD at ALB in relationship to the average seasonal 99 percentile effluent COD concentration. The COD influent loading is shown as a percentage of the maximum reactor COD loading treatment capacity (as determined from the volumetric c apacity of the reactors). For each season, the 99th percentile effluent concentration was calculated using the same methodology and excluding the same periods described in EPA’s analysis. [See submittal for Figure 4. Comparison of 99th Percentile Effluent Concentrations at ALB Over10 - Year Period] The disparity in the effluent concentrations in relationship to the degree to which a reactor is loaded invalidates EPA’s assumption that there is no relationship between influent conditions and effluent concentra tion. It also invalidates the data set used by EPA to calculate effluent limits. An alternative means of calculating potential limits that factors in the effluent of influent COD load should be considered. The data provided in the above graphic provide a b asis for a more appropriate means. The data suggest that use of performance data when the system was loaded well below its average capacity provide an unrealistic representation of the system performance. In particular, for the four seasons in which influe nt COD loading rates were less than 75 percent, the effluent concentrations were less than half the value of the effluent concentrations at ALB for the seasons when influent COD loading rates were near the system capacity. By utilizing the entire range of data and ignoring the relationship to influent COD loadings, EPA is, in effect, either forcing airports to operate at less than their loading capacity (thereby requiring more storage) and/or forcing airports to build larger treatment systems than were acco unted for in their cost analysis. If EPA used only the data in which influent loadings were130 within 25 percent of the load capacity, the 99th percentile concentration for daily limits would be 346mg/L, and the 97th percentile concentrations for weekly efflu ent limits would be 174 mg/L based only on the ALB data. The variability of the ALB system under “typical” airport and weather operating conditions must be accounted for in any final Airport Deicing ELG. Response: The commenter suggests that there is a po sitive relationship between influent load and effluent concentration. The commenter’s argument about a relationship between 99% effluent soluble COD concentration and influent loading percent of treatment capacity is based on a plot of the seasonal data (i n the comment, see Figure 4). It is important to note that in the commenter’s plot, (i) the plot did not include a value for the 2008 - 2009 season, and (ii) the 99th percentile of effluent COD used for the 2007 - 2008 season was higher than the number EPA use d to establish the NSPS (with the difference resulting from the commenter not making the necessary exclusions of some data from the 2007 - 2008 season, e.g., for units operated in series). Because of the two items mentioned above, the commenter's figure sho ws a stronger relationship than actually exists. In response to the commenter, EPA performed two statistical analyses to address the comments. First, a linear regression model was considered to assess the relationship between influent load and effluent c oncentration based on the seasonal means. The results of the analysis provide no statistical evidence to support the argument that the effluent concentration is a function of the influent load (p = 0.19, which not significant at the standard significance level of 0.05). Second, a logistic regression was performed to assess whether there was any relationship between influent concentration and the occurrence of over - the - limit effluent values. The results of the analysis suggest that the likelihood of having effluent values over the limit is not influenced by the influent concentration. See the memo from Cuc Schroeder to Eric Strassler and Brian D’Amico (June 30, 2011; DCN AD01245) for further details of the analysis. Furthermore, the commenter correctly sta ted that “the AFB systems at ALB, CAK, PDX, and many industrial operations are designed to operate at a near constant influent COD load. Operation at a near constant influent COD load is desirable because it results in a more stable bacterial population, improving the treatment efficiency and increasing the predictability of system effluent.” EPA has included as a part of the costing models, the costs associated with installation of storage tanks for the purpose of equalization to ensure that an AFB syste m will be run with a “near constant” influent load and volume. Additionally, EPA contacted Albany to discuss operations of the AFB system, specifically in regards to effluent concentrations, and an Albany representative stated that if the equalization and treatment system is designed correctly, like Albany, then an increase in influent loadings will not cause effluent concentrations to increase. The design loadings of the system are between 6 kg/m 3 and 25 kg/m 3 (6,000 mg/L - 25,000 mg/l) and Albany has not had an issue staying within those parameters. The Albany representative also stated that while they have never had an issue of overloading the capacity of the treatment system, there have been times where the COD influent concentrations have been unusuall y low, and in those cases they dramatically increased the flow rate into the system. This contingency was anticipated in the system design, however, and there is sufficient hydraulic capacity for these events. BAT_VAR - BAT limitations – variability Comme nt Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1 - 9 (CAK Airport) We understand that EPA was unable to include data from an AFB treatment system at an airport with pad collection due to lack of availability at the time EPA’s analysis concluded. Since EPA performed its analysis, the first full season of operational data from the CAK AFB system (2008 - 2009) has become available. The CAK deicer management system differs from the ALB system in that deicing collection is131 performed on deicing pads. This leads to lower stor age volumes, higher COD concentrations, and lower flow rates routed through our treatment system compared to the ALB system. Operating in way, our AFB system has been able to achieve COD removal rates of greater than 99.7% and we have been meeting our NPDE S compliance requirements. As we reviewed the proposed effluent limits from EPA, we became concerned that there are times that we would be operating under our standard operating conditions, meeting our water - quality based limits, but potentially exceeding the proposed EPA limits in the ELG. As discussed below, we reviewed our data in an attempt to better understand our compliance risks with the ELG and believe that the influent characteristics that we happen to have been of our use of deicing pads affect ou r effluent concentrations and hence our ability to comply with the proposed limits. This leads us to the conclusion that EPA assertion that the ALB is representative of the performance of AFBs is not correct because it does not adequately consider the impa ct of influent characteristics that may be variable from site to site. In an attempt to analyze the effect of differing design, operational, and compliance conditions on effluent limits, we analyzed the average influent COD loadings and average COD effluen t limits from our operations in the 2008 - 2009 season, which was our first full season of AFB operation. Based on EPA’s analysis that each reactor is considered a separate facility, we performed our calculations assuming that our two reactors represent two additional facilities. The table below shows the values for the 99th percentile effluent soluble COD concentration from each of the two reactors at the CAK system from the 2008 - 2009 deicing season. The 99th percentile values shown below were calculated usi ng the same methodology described in the TDD to analyze the ALB data. " See Table 1. 99th Percentile Soluble COD Effluent Concentrations from Each Treatment Reactor" The same set of data used to calculate the 99th percentile daily effluent concentrations w as used to calculate the 97th percentile weekly effluent soluble COD concentrations from each of the CAK reactors. The table below shows the 97th percentile effluent concentrations using the same methodology described in the TDD. " See Table 2. 97th Percen tile Soluble COD Effluent Weekly Average Concentrations from Each Treatment Unit " Lastly, we reviewed the 50th percentile effluent concentration from the CAK AFB system. The median of the 50th percentile effluent concentrations from each reactor from the 2008

– 2009 season was 165 mg/L soluble COD. On page 14 - 15 of the TDD, EPA states that the 50th percentile effluent concentration from the ALB AFB system data was 41 mg/L COD and that facilities should operate AFB systems to maintain a long - term average of 41 mg/L. Clearly the effluent concentrations from the CAK AFB system are different from the effluent concentrations at the ALB AFB system. These differences, however, are not related to the performance of the systems. Like the ALB system, our AFB removes more than 99.7% of influent COD. Our conclusion is that specific influent water characteristics and operational decisions as to where the system is operated with respect to the system COD load removal capacity have an impact on the COD effluent concentrati ons. We therefore believe that the effluent limits in the Proposed Rule calculated only from the ALB system are not necessarily representative of AFBs that may operate at other airports. CAK can provide daily monitoring from its AFB system upon EPA request . Response: See the EPA response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, excerpt 75 in comment code BAT_PER for more information. EPA chose not to include data from the CAK system in the analysis for the final rule. For more information, see the response to comme nt EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, excerpt 110 in comment code BAT_PER. BAT_VAR - BAT limitations – variability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1247 - 2 (CVG Airport) KCAB believes that the proposed rules are deficient in that they Recommend a single technology, Anaerobic Fluidized Bed Reactor (AFBR) as the basis for the Best Available Technology (BAT) for Wastewater Treatment and Recycling Technologies.132 Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports. However, EPA selected the AFB treatment system as the basis to establish NSPS for discharge of collected ADF - contaminated stormwater. EPA discusses why this technology represent BADCT for new sources in the preamble to the final ru le. As is the case with any technology - based NSPS, the final rule does not preclude the use of other technologies to meet the NSPS requirements. See the final TDD Section 7 for more information on technologies used for treatment and/or disposal. BAT_VAR - BAT limitations – variability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1247 - 3 KCAB believes that the proposed rules are deficient in that they Do not contain any discretionary latitude for consideration of exceeding the proposed COD levels during extreme dei cing events or weather conditions. Response: In the final rule, EPA is promulgating daily maximum and weekly average effluent COD limitations for new sources. The statistical percentiles upon which the limitations are based are intended to be high enoug h to accommodate reasonably anticipated variability (such as storm events) such that a well operated new airport (representing a best available demonstrated control technology) would be have a (99) percent confidence of meeting the NSPS. Additionally, in the event that an airport with an adequately designed collection and treatment system (including sufficient equalization), should experience an upset due to extenuating circumstances, EPA expects that the Upset and Bypass provisions in the NPDES regulation s will accommodate these situations. For more information about how the limitations were developed see the technical development document. C_ADD_AIR_EM - Additional costs associated with air emissions * See Group Response at end of this comment code * C _ADD_AIR_EM - Additional costs associated with air emissions Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 15 The cost of installation of the entire system (collection and treatment) did not account for the need to get an air quality permit to operate the treatment facility. C_ADD_AIR_EM - Additional costs associated with air emissions Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 16 The cost did not account for the possible need to get an air quality permit to operate multiple GRVs. The GRVs have a separate engine that operates the vacuum portion of the equipment. These off - road engines may be considered stationary sources subject to permitting if they are operated only on one facility for two or more years. Most airport authorities will not likely be loaning out or operating their GRVs at more than one facility.133 C_ADD_AIR_EM - Additional costs associated with air emissions Comment I nfo: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 49 Costs of Emissions: As noted above, EPA evaluated emissions associated with increased taxiing times in this rulemaking. We have not been able to complete a thorough review of EPA’s methodology and, thus, cannot confirm whether EPA’s methodology is appropriate. For example, we note that EPA’s estimated additional emissions are based on assumptions about the additional “time - in - mode” taxiing to/from and idling at CDPs

– while we agree additional emissions likely will resu lt from this required activity, we have not thoroughly evaluated whether EPA’s “time - in - mode” assumptions are reasonable. It is clear, however, that EPA has not accounted for emissions associated with potential delays related to use of CDPs

– a complete an alysis would include such emissions. The following comments are made subject to that backdrop. EPA’s analysis concludes that emissions of criteria pollutants is expected to increase at Tier One airports as a result of its Proposed Rule. EPA does not acknow ledge, however, that these airports currently are all located in “Moderate” 8 - Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas (“NAA”). 193 [FOOTNOTE:193 See EPA’s listing of Ozone NAA here: http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/ designations/1997standards/statedesig.htm.] In addition, BOS, EWR, IAD, JFK and LGA are in carbon monoxide (“CO”) Maintenance Areas.194 [FOOTNOTE:194 See EPA’s listing of CO Maintenance Areas here: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/cmc.html.] As a result, if construction of CDPs require completio n of a general conformity determination pursuant to Section 176(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act, these additional emissions may require mitigation.195 [FOOTNOTE: 195 EPA has proposed revisions to its General Conformity Regulations (see 73 Fed. Reg. 1402) (Janua ry 8, 2008)) and ATA has commented on that proposal (see EPA - HQ - OAR - 2006 - 0669 - 0061.2) and hereby incorporates them here.] This can be extremely costly

– for example, nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) emission credits sold for over $10,000 per ton in Southern Califor nia in December 2009.196 [FOOTNOTE: 196 See http://www.aqmd.gov/reclaim/docs/ 2010 - 1_avg_nox_price.pdf; NOx credits sold for as high as $124,000 per ton during the California energy crisis in 2001 (see http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/2003/030826a.html).] In this co ntext it is important to point out that EPA recently proposed to tighten the ground - level ozone standard.197 [FOOTNOTE: 197 See http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/actions.html#jan10s.] In addition, it is worth noting that EPA’s projection that the “incr emental” CO “emissions associated with aircraft deicing operations” at BOS and EWR are over the de minimis threshold of 100 tpy CO for maintenance areas, while JFK’s is just below the threshold at 94 tpy.198 [FOOTNOTE: 198 TDD at 12 - 7, Table 12 - 6.] In addi tion to local criteria pollutants, EPA’s Proposed Rule will result in increased emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), including Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Although EPA evaluates the increased CO2 emissions associated with use of GRVs and AFBRs,199 the Agency do es not evaluate the CO2 emissions associated with increased fuel burn required by increased taxiing and idling associated with use of CDPs. [FOOTNOTE:199 TDD at 12 - 3 to 12 - 4 & 12 - 8.] There are proposals now under consideration in Congress that would impose an “economy wide” scheme imposing economic measures to control GHG emissions that would cover transportation fuels, including jet fuel. While ATA opposes such legislation, should it be adopted the cost of any increased fuel consumption will not only inclu de the cost of the fuel as fuel (which is already captured in the “Direct Operating Costs” metric discussed above) but the “carbon cost” of the fuel as well.200 [FOOTNOTE:200 In the context of these Comments, we do not detail our position on any legislativ e or regulatory scheme designed to control GHG emissions through economic measures. Rather, the intent is to point out the need, in the event such a scheme is promulgated/enacted, to take costs that result from such a scheme into account. Major legislation approved by the House and Senate have covered jet fuel “upstream” by requiring jet fuel producers/importers to acquire allowances necessary to cover GHG content of fuel they introduce into commerce. In our view, the effect of such “upstream” coverage woul d be that 100% of that cost will be passed through to airlines, which have limited ability to pass through, in turn, the cost to passengers. See EA at 2 - 40 & 2 - 48 (“Thus, it appears that at least in the short run, it is difficult in today’s business climat e for airlines to pass through a significant percentage of costs to their passengers”).] Measurement Metrics: • Criteria Pollutants: should be based on recent cost134 data from relevant markets. • CO2: if legislation is enacted that will impose a cost on CO2 emissions, the cost should be evaluated based on reasonable estimates of CO2 “permits” or “allowances;” EPA has used an estimate of $15 per metric ton of CO2 equivalent to evaluate legislative proposals in the recent past.201 [FOOTNOTE: 201 EPA, EPA Analys is of the Waxman - Markey Discussion Draft: The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

– Executive Summary (April 20, 2009) (available here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/pdfs/WaxmanMarkeyExecutiveSummary.pdf.] It must be noted as well t hat the emissions identified are in tons per year

– thus, to the degree emissions from multiple years must be mitigated and/or “covered” by emissions permits or allowances, these costs are recurring annual costs, not one time costs. C_ADD_AIR_EM - Additio nal costs associated with air emissions Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 51 Emissions Associated With GRVs and Other Vehicles: EPA does quantify the GRV emissions it expects would result from the Proposed Rule. Again, we have not completed a det ailed evaluation of EPA’s methodology and cannot confirm whether it is appropriate. The point here is that the economic cost associated with such emissions (through required mitigation or purchase of emission permits) must be quantified. In addition, EPA m ust expand its evaluation of emissions to include not only GRVs, but emissions from any other vehicles necessary to support deicing operations. C_ADD_AIR_EM - Additional costs associated with air emissions Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 52 Emissions Associated With Support Facilities : EPA does not account for the need for other support facilities, including heated offices, lounges, and control towers/operation centers for deicing personnel, ADF storage areas, access roads, etc. Emissions as sociated with these facilities must also be quantified. C_ADD_AIR_EM - Additional costs associated with air emissions Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 53 Emissions Associated With AFBRs: EPA also evaluates emissions associated with operation o f AFBRs, including “biogasses.”203 Again, we have not analyzed it in detail and we are not commenting on the general validity of EPA’s evaluation. We do note, however, that EPA states that there will be an “additional 17,300 tons per year of carbon dioxide from AFBR treatment,” of stormwater collected from CDPs, which results from flaring all the biogas generated by the treatment systems. C_ADD_AIR_EM - Additional costs associated with air emissions Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 54 Emissions Associated With Construction: EPA also does not account for emissions that will result from construction of CDPs, AFBRs and associated facilities, including access roads, ADF storage facilities and stormwater storage facilities. Construction of t reatment facilities (including associated pump and conveyance systems) at one medium hub airport alone, for example, was projected to result in estimated NOx emissions as high as 4.48 tpy.204 [FOOTNOTE:204 Port of Portland (CDM), Environmental Assessment f or the Proposed Deicing System Enhancement Project at Portland International Airport at 5 - 6 (June 2009).]135 GROUP RESPONSE FOR ALL COMMENTS UNDER CODE C_ADD_AIR_EM EPA is not promulgating a collection and treatment requirement for spent ADF as part of the BAT requirements. With respect to new sources, EPA analyzed costs on a facility - wide basis. Component costs, such as permits, are not examined as part of the barrier - to - entry test. Additionally, there should be no operational changes associated with prod uct substitution for airfield deicers associated with BAT. Correspondingly, EPA estimates there will be no changes in air emissions as a result of today’s BAT requirements. In addition, EPA considered the non - water quality environmental impacts, includin g air emissions, resulting from the NSPS established in this rule and found them to be acceptable. EPA estimates that the NSPS would not result in unacceptable air emissions due to alleged delays in takeoff because a new airport can be designed to incorpo rate de - icing pads and function efficiently, without incremental delays based solely on the use of de - icing pads. The NSPS requirements should not cause any operational modifications or increases in taxiing time which would cause increased air emissions. Information in EPA's record indicates that deicing pads may actually increase efficiency for airport operations and therefore EPA does not anticipate that there would be unacceptable air emissions resulting from the use of de - icing pads. Moreover, any in cremental air emissions from a biological treatment system are insignificant in comparison to those associated with an airport. See the Preamble for further discussion on the air emissions associated with the AFB treatment system. Moreover, any air emiss ions from vehicles related to deicing would be occurring regardless of the presence of this regulation. C_ADD_LAND - Additional costs associated with land * See Group Response at end of this comment code * C_ADD_LAND - Additional costs associated with land Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 55 EPA Fails to Identify and Account for Costs Associated With Devoting Land to Accommodate Selected BAT Perhaps as a result of its failure to assess properly whether land is available at airports to accommo date selected BAT, EPA does not attempt to ascertain the costs associated with acquiring and/or creating land necessary to accommodate such facilities.205 As EPA agrees, at land - constrained airports the costs of acquiring land necessary to accommodate requ ired facilities (and/or for mitigating the associated environmental impacts) are likely prohibitive even for capacity enhancement projects.206 Thus, regardless of whether the land would be needed to accommodate collection, treatment and/or associated facil ities at these airports, the costs will in fact be prohibitive. Assuming that at some airports it is feasible to devote land to BAT and to do so at a reasonable cost, a component of that cost must be the opportunity cost associated with devoting the land t o that purpose. In its Economic Analysis, EPA asserts: In developing cost estimates for installing centralized deicing pads, EPA did not impute an opportunity cost for the use of airport land taken by the pads. EPA believes that the airports projected to i nstall deicing pads to meet a 60 percent capture requirement for ADF will be able to install the pad(s) on their current property without purchasing additional land. Furthermore, deicing pads will need to be installed within the existing structure of runwa ys, aprons, and taxiways. Because of FAA - mandated restrictions on structure heights and clearances, EPA believes airports cannot use those sites for building terminals, cargo facilities, maintenance buildings or other structures. Thus these sites have few, if any, alternative uses that would create an opportunity cost for using the site to construct a deicing pad.207 This logic is flawed. EPA itself provides examples within this passage of uses to which land that, if not devoted to CDPs, could be put, namel y runways, aprons and taxiways. In other words, there is an opportunity cost of136 devoting land to CDPs, i.e., the possibility of devoting it to runways, aprons and taxiways. Thus, land devoted to CDPs (or any other related facility) necessarily comes at the cost of devoting the land to projects that could improve airport capacity. As a result, the opportunity cost is the foregone economic benefit that could be derived from devoting land to uses that increase capacity and/or improve the efficiency or safety o f the airfield. CDPs are not the only facilities that would be required to meet EPA’s proposed BAT standards. Clearly, large wastewater storage and treatment facilities would be required as well. EPA recognizes such structures are subject to “FAA - mandated restrictions on structure heights and clearances,” and other safety considerations (including bird strike hazards). Thus, to the degree devoting land to these uses displaces or precludes potential “airside” projects that could enhance capacity and/or impro ve efficiency there is a measurable opportunity cost; to the degree such structures could displace landside facilities such as “terminals, cargo facilities, maintenance buildings or other structures,” there also is a measurable opportunity cost. C_ADD_LAND - Additional costs associated with land Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 79 EPA failed to take into account in its cost analysis the value of the land that would be used for storage and treatment. Available land at any airport has an opportunit y cost. This land opportunity cost is even higher for land - constrained airports such as JFK, LGA, and EWR. The considerable amounts of airport property that would be needed for storage and treatment plant infrastructure could have been leased or used for o ther airport uses such as taxiways, hangars, and staging areas. EPA should include the land value in its cost analysis for the storage system and treatment plant to reflect the real world considerations involved in complying with the Proposed Rule at our a irports. C_ADD_LAND - Additional costs associated with land Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 99 The opportunity cost of the land required is not included in the analysis.219 Centralized deicing pads, the BAT chosen by EPA for airports with a 60 percent collection requirement, are particularly land intensive. EPA erroneously assumed that all airports required to install deicing pads would be able to do so within the current boundaries of airport property without acquiring additional land or using revenue - producing airport land.220 The Port Authority maintains that EPA made these statements with very little or no analysis to support them. The Port Authority airports are located on relatively small land areas compared to EPA’s model airports. They a re situated within a dense metropolitan region, in some cases adjacent to large bodies of water, with no readily available land to install deicing pads that would be operationally cost - effective. In the event these pads are required to be installed, the P ort Authority would have to acquire additional land through purchase or condemnation, or potentially create land in or around environmentally sensitive areas. If the pads were located on current airport property, they would displace present airport uses su ch as parking lots that are essential to landside operations at the airport, or cargo operations that are essential to the economic health of the region, both for the goods that they bring to the region and the revenue they generate to the Port Authority. Use of these properties for deicing would require the Port Authority to terminate current leasehold agreements to comply with the rule. In all cases the cost of acquiring access and control of these properties for deicing pads would be very high, in terms of lost revenue as well as the cost of demolishing current structures and preparing the land for airside infrastructure. The Port Authority collects annually on average $3 million per building for rents associated with cargo buildings located close to the runways and taxiways. This translates into $200,000 per occupied acre in average annual revenue. In the event that airport property in use were required to install deicing pads, leasehold agreements would have to be terminated, translating into a revenue l oss of approximately $15.6 million221 per year. In addition, current structures would need to be demolished,137 increasing the costs even further, considering that the demolition cost per square foot is $34.27 on average. Depending on the size of the building s required to be demolished, the requirement for demolition would raise costs drastically. If the Port Authority were forced to look at adjacent non - airport areas for the land to locate the pads, the cost of acquiring the land, in a dense urban area, would be very high

– even if the land were to be available. A market value for the land required for the proposed deicing pads must be determined and included, taking into account not only the purchase price but the cost of relocation of current owners, demolit ion of structures, the creation of landfill, and potential environmental impacts. In addition, the cost could not justify the use of the land to accommodate aircraft deicing events for perhaps only four or five times a year based on the ”typical” winter we ather pattern. C_ADD_LAND - Additional costs associated with land Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 124 EPA Did Not Consider the Value of the Land Where Collection and Treatment Will Occur. EPA did not include the value of the land that is (or w ill be) used for deicing pads, equipment, storage, and treatment. As with all land, airport property has a value. By dedicating airport property for uses associated with ADF collection, storage, and treatment, it eliminates its availability for other uses (e.g., runways, taxiways, hangars, parking, etc), many of which may be revenue - generating. In addition, land constrained airports may be forced to acquire neighboring land, if possible. EPA should account for the opportunity cost associated with the land v alue in calculating deicing pad installation costs. GROUP RESPONSE FOR ALL COMMENTS UNDER CODE C_ADD_LAND EPA is not promulgating a uniform national collection or treatment requirement for spent ADF as part of the BAT requirements of the final rule. Additionally there should be no additional land requirements associated with product substitution for airfield deicers. As such, these comments are not relevant to the final rule. For NSPS, EPA conducted a barrier - to - entry (BTE) analysis. See section VII .E of the final rule preamble. The opportunity cost associated with land for a treatment system is not part of the BTE analysis, so this comment is not relevant to the final rule requirements for new sources. C_ADD_OP - Additional costs associated with o perational impacts * See Group Response at end of this comment code * C_ADD_OP - Additional costs associated with operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 - 10 There are significant costs associated with maintaining and operating a glycol management program that utilizes deicing pads and/or other collection technologies. Depreciation, interest on initial capital investment, maintenance, and operations all carry significant economic burdens to an airport authority after the initial capital project is completed. At MSP, the annual operations and maintenance of the glycol management program is well in excess of one million dollars per year. As previously submitted to the EPA, MSP's average cost of operation is nearly $1.4 million per year. Additionally, the EPA has not included the full breadth of the collection, recycling and processing facilities in the cost analysis. The138 EPA should review its cost calculations a nd adequately reflect all costs associated with implementing the ELG in its evaluation of economic impacts. The assumption of no cost of implementation or annual operating costs is misleading. C_ADD_OP - Additional costs associated with operational impact s Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 47 EPA Fails to Include Costs Associated With Potential Operational Impacts of Its Rule As explained in Section V, above, the Agency fails to undertake any reasonable analysis of the potential for the Proposed Rule to impact aircraft operations at airports an d throughout the NAS. The record is devoid of any analysis of costs associated with operational impacts. EPA must address such costs and must do so in at least two ways. First, the Agency already has

– in the context of evaluating air emissions

– assumed i ncreased taxiing times and fuel burn associated with use of CDPs.189 [FOOTNOTE:189 Notice at 44710; TDD at 12 - 4 to 12 - 7.] Increased taxiing times represents the bare minimum basis for evaluating operational costs associated with use of CDPs. More important ly, any policy or program that could have the effect of increasing congestion and delays at airports clearly has the potential to impose huge costs on the industry and consumers. While analyzing the extent to which

– or even whether

– this rulemaking will have the effect of increasing congestion and delays at particular airports and if so, the broader effect on the NAS, requires extensive time and resources, it is clear the Agency must address the issue. The elements of any analysis of costs associated with increased operating times (whether or not they result from delay) include (without limitation) the following: Direct and Indirect Aircraft Operating Costs: Aircraft operations entail certain costs which can then be estimated on a per - block - time (airborne time plus taxi time). For 2008, the most current calendar year for which data is available, these costs can be broken down as follows190: Cost Center Fuel Crew

– Pilots/Flight Attendants Maintenance Aircraft Ownership Other TOTAL Direct Aircraft Operating Cost per Block Minute 40.94 13.31 10.18 7.79 1.87 74.10 [FOOTNOTE:190 http://www.airlines.org/economics/cost+of+delays/. The less efficient the air transportation system, the more aircraft, personnel and landside facilities airlines require to provide serv ices. As a report from the U.S. Senate Joint Economic Committee Majority Staff points out: DOT points out in its analytic guidance, if “. . . an initiative improves system efficiency, an operator may be able to provide the same service with fewer aircraft. ” Likewise a system with greater delays requires more aircraft to provide a given level of service, along with flight attendants, more general personnel, and other factors of production. Joint Economic Committee Majority Staff, U.S. Senate, Your Flight Has Been Delayed Again

– Flight Delays Cost Passengers, Airlines, and the U.S. Economy Billions at A12 (May 2008) (quoting GRA Economic Values at 4 - 1) (hereafter “JEC Report”).] Measurement Metric: the estimated average cost of an airline block - minute has ran ged between $60 and $75 in recent years. C_ADD_OP - Additional costs associated with operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 48 Cost to Passengers: The value of passenger travel time typically is measured “as a proportion of the wa ge rate.” 191 [FOOTNOTE:191 GRA, Incorporated (for FAA Office of Aviation Policy and Plans), Economic Values for FAA Investment and Regulatory Decisions, A Guide at 1 - 1 (Final Report, Revised July 3, 2007) (hereafter “GRA Economic Values).] Measurement Met ric: the average value of passenger travel time $37.18 per hour (2008 value based on FAA recommended value for passenger travel time adjusted per Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index).192 [FOOTNOTE:192 Available here: http://www.bls.gov/w eb/eci.supp.toc.htm]139 C_ADD_OP - Additional costs associated with operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 50 Indirect Costs to the Economy : Airlines are an essential driver of economic activity. A very recent report from the FAA co ncludes that in 2007 “civil aviation activity within the overall economy was responsible for:” • 12 million jobs • $1.3 trillion in total economic activity • 5.6% of GDP202 [FOOTNOTE:202 FAA, Air Traffic Organization, The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy at 7 (December 2009) (available here: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/FAA_Economic_Impact_Rpt_2009.pdf).] Delays also impact airline customers in less direct ways, including increased shipping times, and lost productiv ity, wages and goodwill. Measurement Metric: The JEC Report makes clear this also is a cost that is difficult to measure; however the JEC Report determined that “multiplying the delay costs to airlines by 1.5” is a reasonable means “to obtain an additional indirect impact due to delay.” C_ADD_OP - Additional costs associated with operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 100 Costs of Additional Aircraft Delays The Proposed Rule Economic Analysis states that EPA did not estimate costs for the potential delays that might be caused by deicing pads. The reasoning is as follows: “...EPA believes that as long as deicing pads do not reduce the number of departures per hour below the limit caused by the weather itself, then the cost of delays is attributable to the bad weather, not the deicing pads. Although some aircraft might be delayed if they lose their spot in the queue, then those costs are offset by the benefit to aircraft that move up in the queue (although those aircraft may not be owned by the same carrier).”222 EPA “acknowledges that airport use of deicing pads increases the complexity of operations during winter weather,” but concludes that “these complexities” can be solved at our airports (and others that would have to install deicin g pads) because other large airports have been able to install deicing pads. “...workable solutions to these operational complexities must be available, although EPA has no means of estimating costs associated with this additional complexity.”223 The Port Au thority strongly maintains that EPA’s approach to the delay issue, as evidenced partially by the statements quoted above, is further indication that the Proposed Rule is significantly and fundamentally flawed and cannot be finalized. First, in its short, q ualitative and totally inadequate discussion, EPA essentially dismissed the potential additional delays and associated costs that could result from the Proposed Rule. This treatment of the issue by EPA demonstrates that it does not recognize the seriousnes s of aircraft delay and the magnitude of the economic costs associated with delay. Second, EPA concluded that deicing pads would not reduce the number of departures per hour below the limit already caused by the weather. Nowhere in the Proposed Rule does E PA provide any analysis to attempt to support this erroneous conclusion. Third, EPA concludes that any potential delay issues and costs would be addressed and ameliorated by allowing other aircraft to move up in the departure queue to replace those that mi ght be delayed. The Port Authority asserts that this is a gross oversimplification and knows through more than half a century of experience in airport operations that this conclusion does not represent the actual situation that would occur at our airports. C_ADD_OP - Additional costs associated with operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 101 Seriousness of Aircraft Delay In 2009, the Partnership for New York City (the “Partnership”) published a study on the economic costs of air tr affic congestion at JFK, LGA, and EWR.224 The study notes that JFK, LGA, and EWR are the three “top” ranked airports in the United States in terms of delay. In 2007,140 only about 66 percent of the departures and 60 percent of the arrivals at the three airpor ts were on time. The average delays in 2007 were about 68 minutes for departures and 53 minutes for arrivals. Peak season travelers to the New York airports are delayed about 70 minutes per flight on average; delays at the end of the day can average longer than 2 hours. Delays at the Port Authority’s three major airports represent one third of all delays in the United States as a whole. In addition, FAA has acknowledged that delays at the Port Authority airports affect the entire national airspace system du e to the high volumes of traffic at our airports and the interrelationship within the national airport system, the complex traffic patterns involved, and airspace management issues. About three - quarters of nationwide delays originate in the New York area a irspace, and each delay in New York results in more than two delays elsewhere in the country. The Partnership study notes that “all three of our major airports are currently operating near or at functional capacity for many hours of the day.”225 This fact is important because as activity approaches and exceeds capacity, the increases in delays are exponential. Forecasts of future delay at our airports predict significant increases in delay through 2025, even with capacity limitations (slot allocations) impo sed by the FAA. The study notes that passenger demand will exceed the supply of flights by 2012 and that by 2025, as many as 39 million passengers may be unserved. This constitutes an unacceptable and untenable situation for the New York/ New Jersey metrop olitan region, and the Port Authority cannot accept a proposed regulation, based on questionable analysis such as performed by EPA for the Proposed Rule, that would further exacerbate such a situation. The economic costs of aircraft delay are substantial. Currently, aircraft delays cost Americans more than $9 billion a year; New York - related delays comprise more than 25 percent of that figure. The future economic impact of congestion - related delays at JFK, LGA, and EWR is projected to be $79 billion through 2025. These costs include the loss of time for passengers, additional staff and fuel costs for airlines, and the costs of additional shipping time for freight companies. In addition to these costs, delay - associated losses in revenue will result in a $7.4 billion loss to the New York/New Jersey regional economy, and the additional fuel consumption caused by delays (and concurrent environmental consequences) will result in an additional $1.7 billion loss. If delays cause fewer tourists to visit the New York/ New Jersey region, additional losses (not estimated) in economic activity will occur. New York businesses will lose $16 billion in locally produced goods and services, and more than 5,600 jobs that would otherwise exist will not be created. The study notes that the main causes of congestion at our airports include the limitations of facilities on the ground, including the runway and taxiway systems; the level of shared airspace among the three airports and other airports in the region; and the limitations o f the current air navigation system. Relevant to the Proposed Rule is that the airspace is typically too crowded to accommodate even routine aircraft deviations due to weather, making typical weather events an additional cause of delay (unusual extreme wea ther was not included in the delay analysis.) This brief summary of this recent economic study indicates that (1) aircraft delay is a serious issue for the New York airports and other airports in the U.S., (2) the economic costs of delay are substantial, a nd (3) airspace limitations in the New York area are such that even minor weather events can cause aircraft delay. Changes to our airports required to comply with the Proposed Rule that would reduce their functional capacity could certainly lead to exponen tial increases in delays, with associated economic costs. None of these factors were considered in the Proposed Rule. C_ADD_OP - Additional costs associated with operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 105 Potential Delay and Assoc iated Costs Should be Assessed The Port Authority maintains that EPA must assess the potential effects of the Proposed Rule on aircraft delay, properly and fully estimate the related economic costs, and incorporate the costs into the economic analysis. The analysis should be based on potential realistic pad locations (not the locations identified in the ERG land availability analysis), with the understanding that realistic locations would most probably not provide enough deicing capacity to comply with the rule as proposed. The analysis also should include simulations of aircraft movement under a variety of conditions using state - of - the - art airport/aircraft movement models, including the winter141 storm conditions when most deicing fluids are used, as well as t he other conditions under which the Proposed Rule would require deicing. The associated direct costs to the airlines should be estimated; the costs to passengers and the regional economy should also be considered. Estimated increases in fuel burn should be included in EPA’s environmental analysis. For all of these efforts, EPA should consult with the appropriate staff at the FAA. The Port Authority strongly believes that EPA must re - analyze these issues in order for it to have ample information to move forw ard in its rule - making process. C_ADD_OP - Additional costs associated with operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 89 EPA Must Analyze and Account for Operational Cost Impacts. EPA has completely missed or conveniently ignored the potentially significant costs of the operational impacts created by the proposed collection requirements. As previously discussed, the use of both GRVs and deicing pads can considerably impact aircraft operations. Operational impacts such as delayed arriv als and departures, increased taxiing time, and reduced capacity will result in financial impacts to airports, airlines, passengers, and beyond. In addition, costs may also be incurred through the operational disruptions that occur during the construction of deicing pads. The impacts to operations and the associated costs can, and should, be calculated and factored into EPA’s cost - benefits analysis. Changes to deicing procedures and infrastructure may adversely affect flight operations at an airport, with r esulting costs to airports, airlines and the flying public. Switching from gate/apron deicing to deicing pads can result in queuing at pads, operational constraints (e.g., taxiway/runway use restrictions), and/or increased travel distance and taxiing time for aircraft from gates to runways. Switching defrosting operations from the locations where defrosting is currently conducted (typically at gates, but also at hangars, hangar ramps, etc.) to deicing pads will require taxiing planes from parking locations to pads and back to gates. Taking pavement areas at an airport out of service while drainage and collection improvements are constructed can result in various inefficiencies during the construction period. Ineffective and/or slower pavement deicing (such a s might ensue in some instances if urea were banned) reduces airport capacity, resulting potentially in flight diversions and delays. Even the use of GRVs adds to existing airport traffic, potentially slowing already complex operations (particularly when deicing occurs in gate areas, where GRVs would need to be added to planes, fuel service, baggage handling, catering, maintenance, ground control, security, passengers, deicing equipment, etc.). Further, airports and airlines do not operate in isolation, bu t within the National Airspace System, of which the overall efficiency can be affected as delays propagate across the entire system. This is particularly true of delays in the New York and East Coast airports. C_ADD_OP - Additional costs associated with op erational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 90 The cost of these operational impacts resulting from the ELG, including delays and the additional time spent in preparing aircraft to fly in winter weather, should be estimated for airports, airlines and passengers. The FAA suggests methods for identifying delays and estimating and monetizing them in “FAA Airport Benefit - Cost Analysis Guidance.”68 FAA has also suggested specific unit values for these delays in the form of cost per aircraft hou r and cost per passenger hour in “Economic Values for Evaluation of Federal Aviation Administration Investment and Regulatory Programs.”69 The Air Transport Association has updated these unit values, resulting in the following estimates applicable for 2008 :70 [Footnotes 68: Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, December 15, 1999, at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/bc_analysis/media/faabca.pdf. 69: Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, June, 1998, at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/20000/20800/20898 /PB98157530.pdf. 70: See http://www.airlines.org/economics/cost+of+delays/ ] • Cost of aircraft delays: $74.10 per block minute (covering all aircraft costs including fuel, crew, maintenance, aircraft ownership, etc., estimated across all142 forms of delay in cluding both airborne and on - ground). Costs in terms of aircraft variable costs only (i.e., excluding ownership costs for the aircraft) can be derived by applying the FAA’s estimated ratio of variable to total costs (0.791) to the total cost per minute. Th e resulting estimate for variable aircraft costs is $58.65 per minute of delay. • Cost of passenger delays: $35.70 per passenger hour. EPA must estimate the operational costs associated with changed deicing procedures as will be necessary for compliance wi th the proposed ELGs. Some costs will be incurred by airports, some by airlines, and some by passengers (e.g., associated with increased delays). These various operational costs should be included in the various models used to estimate the economic impacts of the Proposed Rule. We believe that the operational costs associated with EPA’s proposal are large and very substantial relative to the direct compliance costs that EPA has estimated thus far. In an example below, we estimate the operational costs assoc iated with the change from gate/apron deicing to deicing at pads as will be necessary at the seven large, northern tier airports that EPA projects will need to install deicing pads in order to comply with the proposed 60% collection requirement for ADF (BO S, CLE, EWR, IAD, JFK, LGA, ORD). C_ADD_OP - Additional costs associated with operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 91 Operational Costs to Switch to Pad Deicing for Seven Airports that EPA Estimates Will Be Subject to 60 Percent Collection Requirements Are Significant. EPA estimates that deicing a flight at a dedicated deicing pad will add an average of 1 hour to the time required for flight departure relative to traditional deicing at the gate/apron: 15 minutes in additional tax iing time for the aircraft (loaded with crew and passengers and ready to depart) to proceed from gate to deicing pad, 30 minutes for deicing at the pad, and 15 more minutes in additional taxi time for the plane to proceed from pad to runway.71. We estimate , to parallel EPA’s estimate for deicing, that defrosting a plane at a dedicated deicing pad will add an average of 45 minutes to the time required for flight readiness relative to commonly practiced defrosting at the location where the plane is parked ove rnight:72 [Footnote 72: EPA’s proposed performance standards for deicing pads specify that “All aircraft deicing shall take place on a decentralized deicing pad, with the exception of deicing for safe taxiing”. Proposed 40 CFR 449.20(b)(1)(ii)(A). Defrosti ng is a form of deicing, and it is needed for safe flying, and not for only safe taxiing. We thus believe that the proposed regulation will require airports subject to the 60% collection requirement to conduct both defrosting and traditional deicing at cen tralized pads. Note one major difference in the operational impact of this requirement relative to defrosting vs. deicing. Defrosting is most commonly conducted after overnight storage of the plane and before passengers are loaded for the aircraft’s first flight of the day. Additional time requirements that the ELG imposes on defrosting thus add more operating costs for the plane (e.g., fuel, some crew), but not for passengers. Most deicing, in contrast, is conducted with the plane full of passengers, and a dditional time requirements thus affect both aircraft operating costs and passenger delays.] 15 minutes in additional taxiing time to proceed from overnight parking (at a gate, hangar, apron or elsewhere on the airfield) to deicing pad, 15 minutes for defr osting at the pad, and 15 more minutes in additional taxi time for the aircraft to proceed from pad to gate where it will be loaded for the first flight of the day or to the runway if it was loaded first. In our calculation of operational costs associated with the proposed 60% collection requirement for the 7 airports that EPA estimates will need to install centralized pads, we apply these estimates of additional deicing/defrosting times to the estimated annual average number of deiced/defrosted flights at these airports, and then estimate resulting monetary costs by applying the FAA/ATA unit cost factors. EPA has developed estimates for the annual volume of ADF used at each of these seven airports that the Agency projects will need to install and use centra lized pads for all deicing/defrosting, (TDD, pages 10 - 9 and 10 - 10). We then apply further information developed by the Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport (MSP), another large, northern tier airport assumed by EPA to meet BAT, in order to estimate from EPA’s fluid usage figures the number of aircraft deiced and defrosted during an average winter season at each of these seven airports. Based on data from MSP,73 we assume at these seven airports that 74% of total ADF usage is for deicing and 26% is f or143 defrosting. We further assume based on data from MSP that the average quantity of glycol used to deice an aircraft is 102 gallons and the average quantity used to defrost an aircraft is 38 gallons. With this information and EPA’s fluid usage estimates, we can then estimate the number of aircraft deiced and defrosted during an average winter season at the seven airports. Applying the delay factors estimated by EPA in the TDD for deicing a typical flight at a centralized pad instead of at the gate/apron, a nd the FAA/ATA unit cost factors for these delays, we then estimate the total operational costs of switching deicing and defrosting from gates/aprons to centralized pads at the 7 airports. The result is an estimate of $442 million per year in operational c osts per year at these seven airports resulting from the ELG requirement for 60% collection. A spreadsheet documenting these calculations is contained in Appendix E.74 [Footnote 74: This cost estimate is not very sensitive to the estimate applied from MSP to the effect that 26% of total deicer usage is for defrosting and 74% for deicing. If we were to assume that 0% of total deicer usage at these 7 airports is for defrosting, the cost estimate would be $466 million/yr. Assuming at the other extreme that 100 % of deicer usage is for defrosting would result in a cost estimate of $381 million/yr. See the referenced spreadsheet in Appendix E.] [See submittal for Table 9. Operational Costs to Switch to Pad Deicing at Seven Airports Identified by EPA as Needing to Do So] These estimated operational costs of $442 million/year associated with deicing at centralized pads at only 7 airports are very large relative to the total costs of $91 million/year that EPA has estimated for the entire proposed rule (but ignoring op erational costs). It is clear that EPA must assess operational costs in order to come anywhere near estimating the total costs of the proposed ELG. C_ADD_OP - Additional costs associated with operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 93 EPA Must Consider the Potential Loss of Airline Service Airports across the country continue to face operational and financial challenges, including reductions in air service, increased air fares, high cancellation and delay rates, and compliance costs associated with on - going, new and proposed regulatory initiatives. With the seemingly increased rate at which more regulatory and financial burdens are being placed upon airports and airlines, including this Proposed Rule, ACI - NA remains concerned about th e cumulative effect of the resulting compliance costs on the availability, and sustainability, air service, particularly at small and non - hub airports. As airports are forced to increase fees to airlines in order to pay for many of these additional costs, it impacts an airline’s decision to provide service to that airport, or that region. This may be particularly true for routes that are only marginally profitable, currently operating at a loss, or currently operating through subsidies. Maintaining adequate access to the national aviation transportation network is of vital economic interest, especially to small and rural communities. However, EPA’s proposed rule has the potential to reduce or eliminate service to some of those communities. EPA must add as a direct cost of its proposed rule the cost associated with any loss in service that will result from any future deicing ELG. EPA did not address this issue in the proposal. C_ADD_OP - Additional costs associated with operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - H Q - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 160 APPENDIX E Operational Cost Calculations Operational Impacts and Costs of Conducting All Deicing/Defrosting at Pads for the 7 Airports Projected by EPA to Install Pads to Meet 60% Collection Requirement [See submittal for cost c alculation]144 C_ADD_OP - Additional costs associated with operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1 - 14 As stated above, if CAK is required to demonstrate compliance with the collection standard in the Proposed Rule by following the deicing pad operation requirements, this would require collection of runoff from every deicing event. This would be a change from CAK’s current practice of determining whether or not to collect runoff based on attempting to meet their existing water qualit y limits. This would lead to increased collection of runoff from the deicing pads, with that runoff being more dilute than the runoff that is currently collected, causing more total runoff to be collected annually. The existing storage tanks at CAK are not designed to manage that increase in dilute runoff. The size of the storage tanks was determined based on meeting the existing water quality limits at CAK. The increased collection of dilute runoff would necessitate additional storage tanks at CAK. The cos ts associated with that additional storage was not included in EPA’s economic analysis. C_ADD_OP - Additional costs associated with operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1 - 17 As discussed earlier, there may be circumstances related to normal variations in the characteristics our influent where our effluent concentrations would exceed the proposed effluent limits even though the AFB system was being operated within standard operating parameters. These exceedances would technically res ult in violations that would need to be reported on our monthly DMRs. If our regulator issues a Notice of Violation (NOVs), we would be required to respond with reasons for the violation and measures to be taken to rectify the situation. Given the normal s tate of operations was achieved, it is unclear how we would respond to this situation. Changing our operations to reduce loading could put us at risk for future violations because of the effective loss of available storage capacity. This is not an appropri ate response as it suggests the actions taken to achieve compliance might lead to non - compliance under other circumstances. It is also unclear how many individual instances of exceeding an ELG - based limit would trigger the need for additional infrastructur e. In the interim, CAK would potentially be getting NOVs for operating effectively. Costs associated with the NOVs include administrative time, fines, potential for new infrastructure, and costs for needing to operate our system for a larger part of the se ason. CAK requests that EPA consider and incorporate these costs into its analysis. CAK also requests that EPA consider providing guidance to permit writers and state compliance personnel for managing this situation short of issuing NOVs. C_ADD_OP - Additi onal costs associated with operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 10 EPA has grossly underestimated the cost associated with implementation of the Proposed Rule. Table 11 - 1, page 11 - 5 of the TDD states the annualized cost for SLC t o meet compliance with the proposed rule is zero. This conclusion is deeply flawed and is based on an assumption by the EPA that SLC achieves a 60% ADF collection rate due to the use of existing deicing pads and therefore will incur zero costs for improvem ents. The SLC ADF collection rate, based on information supplied by the airlines and FBOs, is approximately 20%. In order to meet the60% collection rate, significant improvements on the order of millions of dollars would need to be invested into the curren t collection system to meet the proposed standards. SLC is currently designing a new terminal expansion project, and has begun constructing phase one of six planned end - of - runway deicing pads. The cost for SLC to design and construct three of the six end - o f runway deicing pads is currently estimated at $181,000,000. Included in this estimate is the cost to relocate existing cargo facilities. Relocation costs emphasize the point that open space is not always145 available at land constrained airports and costs f or building deicing pads include not only design, construction, operation and maintenance, but building relocation and apron improvements. The new deicing pads at SLC will increase efficiency and ADF collection rates, however, there is no guarantee that co llection efficiency will improve to meet the proposed 60% standard. Significant operational and maintenance cost must also be factored into deicing pad costs. The EPA's assumption that there will be no financial impact to SLC due to existing deicing method s currently in operation is grossly incorrect and must be accounted for in the regulation documentation. The cost for airports to implement the proposed ELG has not been accurately determined by EPA. GROUP RESPONSE FOR ALL COMMENTS UNDER CODE C_ADD_OP EPA is not promulgating a uniform collection or treatment requirement for spent ADF as part of the BAT requirements for existing sources in the final rule, for the reasons discussed in the preamble. Therefore, comments on operational impacts at existing s ources in connection with the use of ADF collection and treatment technologies are not relevant to the final rule. Additionally there should be no significant operational changes at existing airports associated with product substitution for airfield deice rs. These public comments are directed at existing airports, but EPA also considered whether any operational impacts and delays from today’s NSPS requirements would occur at new airports. EPA has determined that operational constraints and any associated delays that may have occurred at existing airports from the use of the proposed ADF collection and treatment technologies would not similarly apply to new airports that are subject to NSPS in the final rule. See DCN AD01284. EPA also notes that its economic analysis for new sources was at an aggregate facility - wide level. The costs of ADF collection/treatment using deicing pads were based on the costs incurred by the last relatively large airport constructed in the past twenty - five years, Denver Inte rnational Airport, as representative of a new airport. Denver uses dewatering followed by a distillation column and then sends some remaining wastewater to a POTW. EPA viewed these dewatering and distillations costs as a conservative estimate and compara ble to the costs of using an AFB treatment system. See DCN AD01260 . The barrier to entry to analysis for the final rule was not based on the detailed costs of ADF collection components such as storage tanks (which are the subject of some of the comments above). C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 29 (EQ Co.) The last topic of this page (44709) relates to the generation of electricity from biogas produced by the AFB. The publication states that since the AFB is capable of producing sufficient electricity (using micro generators), the EPA assumed no net increase in electricity consumption for the AFB. (DCN AD01198 for calculation). However, initial capital costs for the AFBs were based on a system(s) that does not operate micro - generators to produce electricity. As such, the initial capital costs would have to be increased to accommodate this additional process equipment (as well as the maintenance costs for the generators). Conversely, the systems(s) used as t he basis for the proposed BAT utilize the biogas to pre heat the influent to a temperature necessary to promote and maintain bio - mass growth. If the biogas is no longer used to pre - heat the AFB feed materials, then the operational cost model would have to be adjusted for the BTUs necessary (natural gas - fired or electric heaters). Response: After considering the comments and reviewing the information in its record, EPA is not promulgating a uniform ADF collection and treatment requirement as part of the re quirements for existing sources in the146 final rule; therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, see the preamble to the final rule. Addressing this comment nevertheless, EPA did not include microturbine c osts in its option costing methodology and the basis of the AFB reflects use of the biogas to pre - heat the influent. However, EPA did do an estimate of the potential electricity that could be generated if all AFB treatment systems installed microturbines to generate electricity. See section 12.1 of the TDD for further details. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 30 GRV Fuel Consumption/Emissions: Page 44710, Section XI, (A), discusses the diesel fuel consumpt ion and costs related to "GRV" operations. The first oversight was that the calculation used a single year's (2004 - 2005) ADF application volumes, when it was explained that the impacts (economic and environmental) estimates would be based on the 2002 - 2005 data (an average). (See Page 44694, Section VII, (I).) Secondly, the calculations used the average diesel fuel price for the single deicing period (2004 - 2005) used. The publication stated that 2006 dollars would be used for cost estimates. As such, the ave rage diesel fuel price for the Oct 2005 through May 2006 was recorded as $2.66/gallon (28.5% cost increase.) In calculating the additional diesel fuel to be consumed by "GRVs", this publication, the TDD, nor the other supporting documents provide the basis for the $0.08gallons/gallon ADF. (I.e. the gallons applied at the sample airport, the number of GRVs operated during that time, etc. was not provided). However, working backwards from the 604,000 additional gallons consumed it appears that you are assumin g that only 70 in - scope airports would be adding "GRVs" (at one per airport). As noted above, when discussing initial capital estimates, since "GRV" are part of all collection requirements, then the count would be 165 additional GRVs (if only one per in - sc ope airport). Through extrapolation, that would equate to 1.4M - gallons of additional diesel fuel. Section XI, (B), (1), Emission from GRV Collection: If the logic applied above is correct, then the emissions would need to be calculated on 1.4M - gallons of f uel consumed, instead of the 604,000 - gallons used. Response: After considering the comments and reviewing the information in its record, EPA is not promulgating a national ADF collection and treatment requirement as part of the BAT requirements for existing sources in the final rule. In addition, for new source requirements in the final rule, EPA has identified centralized deicing pads as the BADT technology rather than GRVs. Therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For a discus sion of EPA’s decision, see the preamble to the final rule. Addressing this comment nevertheless, this diesel fuel price used by EPA was the average reported by the Energy Information Administration for the 2004 - 05 winter season, the same time period for w hich EPA analyzed airport deicing activity. EPA notes that not all in - scope airports will have been required to install additional collection and control equipment to meet the collection requirements considered for the final rule. EPA has adjusted the GCV fuel usage estimate accordingly. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 78 TDD Page 12 - 2, reiterates the use of micro - turbines to generate power from AFB methane production (an un - budgeted capital investment). Additionally, the conversion of 1 therm to 29.3 KWh is a theoretical equivalent. Since no micro - turbine is 100% efficient , there would be losses, which do not appear to be accounted for in the calculation of off - setting electrical generation.147 Response: EPA utilized U.S Code Title 15 to determine the Kilowatt - hours produced by 1 therm. U.S. Code Title 15 indicates that 1 t herm is equivalent to 29.3 KWh. EPA agrees that no micro - turbine is 100 percent efficient; however, EPA assumes that losses due to inefficiency of the micro - turbine would be insignificant. Note that EPA did not establish uniform requirements for ADF coll ection and treatment for existing dischargers in the final rule therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 - 11 (MSP Airport) It is not apparent within the s upporting ELG documents that the EPA factored into its costs of compliance the costs associated with preparation of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents and any mitigation required following review of those documents. Airports that are requir ed to make infrastructure modifications or additions to address ELG compliance may have to prepare NEPA documents such as environmental impact statements and other environmental reviews. The NEPA process may require mitigation measures to address concerns identified within these documents that will also incur additional costs to the airport associated with ELG compliance. The EPA should revisit its financial estimates of the costs to the aviation industry to comply with the requirements outlined in the draf t ELG so that estimated NEPA costs are accurately reflected. Response: For existing sources, EPA did not establish uniform requirements for ADF therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. EPA only required product substitution of airfie ld deicing chemicals, therefore no infrastructure modification should be necessary. For new sources, NEPA analysis would be required for the airport as a whole. The costs of any NEPA analysis will already be incurred by a new airport and any additional N EPA analysis associated with BADT technology (pads) will not increase the overall costs of the NEPA analysis significantly, and will not change our conclusion that there is no barrier to entry. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 58 Airports that are assumed to be “zero cost” airports, but will and/or are incurring costs necessary to achieve compliance with proposed BAT . EPA attributed collection efficiencies to airports on the basis of responses to questionnaires. Regardless of whet her its actual collection efficiency meets the required 60% collection efficiency, if an airport reported the existence of a “deicing pad” at its facility, EPA attributed a 60% collection efficiency to that airport. This leads to a gross underestimation of costs. SLC provides perhaps the most telling example. Although EPA asserts the airport currently is able to meet the 60% collection efficiency, SLC has only recently begun a program to construct six deicing pads. So far SLC has approved the construction o f 3 of these pads at an estimated cost of $201,000,000. Thus, EPA’s methodology for assessing current collection efficiencies at airports and, on that basis, attributing costs to airports has led to miss at least $201million in costs at just one airport, S LC. It appears from data available from MSP that current collection practices at that airport may not achieve collection of 60% of applied ADF, although MSP has spent about $80 million in deploying CDPs.148 Response: After considering the comments and revi ewing the information in its record, EPA is not promulgating a uniform ADF collection and treatment requirement for BAT for existing sources. Additionally, for new sources, EPA’s barrier to entry analysis is facility - wide and the cost of a CDP is subsumed in that analysis; therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, see the preamble to the final rule. See DCN AD01260 for more details on the barrier to entry analysis. However, EPA developed an estimate o f the percent of available ADF that is collected and controlled at each airport, based the best available data on the airport's existing stormwater collection as reported by airport personnel in the airport questionnaire or during EPA site visits. For more information about the determination of the collection and control percentages applied to each airport, see the ADF Collection and Control Efficiency Review memorandum, DCN AD01270. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 59 Airports that are assumed to be “zero cost” airports because EPA erroneously concludes they are below the 460,000 gallons ADF usage threshold. Similarly, based on erroneous estimates of ADF usage at certain airports, EPA concludes that they al ready meet collection standards that would be imposed under the ELG. The most important example of this is ANC. According to EPA, ANC falls below the 460,000 ADF gallons - per - year usage threshold and thus is required to collect 20% rather than 60% of availa ble ADF sprayed. ATA analysis of publicly available information indicates that both of these airports currently exceed this threshold and therefore would be required to meet the 60% collection standard. It also is important to emphasize that given the leng th of time it requires to plan, finance and actually construct major infrastructure at airports, even if they currently were below the proposed ADF usage threshold, airports just below any threshold likely would be compelled to plan to comply with the more stringent standard. This is because

– despite the recent spate of international events and downturn in the economy that have depressed aviation growth in recent years

– the long - term prediction for the industry is for growth. With growth

– given the curre nt state of deicing technology available

– airports will assume that more traffic will mean more deicing fluid use. Airports on the cusp of threshold between a 20% collection requirement and a 60% collection requirement will plan accordingly. In short

– th e usage threshold (indeed any usage threshold) will effectively encompass more airports than putatively encompassed at the time of promulgation. IND

– which EPA estimates uses 452,000 gallons ADF annually, just below the 460,000 threshold, is an example of such an airport. It is worth noting in this context that EPA asserts that it established the 460,000 gallon threshold precisely because requiring these airports to meet the 60% collection standard would “incur a heavy economic burden.” 211 Indeed, EPA its elf concludes IND would incur costs amounting to over 8% and ANC over 5% of their operating revenues, far above the 3% threshold it established for evaluating economic achievability.212 Thus, the proposed threshold does encompass two airports EPA agrees ca nnot reasonably afford to be subject to the associated requirements. Any such threshold will need to be much lower than projected usage to ensure these airports are not subject the proposed ADF Collection BAT for Tier One Airports. Response: After consi dering the comments and reviewing the information in its record, EPA is not promulgating a uniform ADF collection and treatment requirement for BAT; therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, see the pr eamble to the final rule.149 C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 60 Airports that are assumed to be “zero cost” airports because EPA erroneously concludes they will remain below the proposed jet and total departu re thresholds. Just because some airports currently are below the thresholds for applicability of BAT, does not mean they will remain there. Again, it is universally anticipated that aviation will grow in the long run

– as a result, more airports will cros s these thresholds. While it is possible some may drop below the thresholds, in the universally assumed long term scenario of continued expansion of the economy and with it aviation, the net effect will be for more rather than fewer airports to become subj ect to the proposed standards. Again, airports that are approaching a threshold most likely will plan as if they already are subject to requirements because they are projected to exceed the thresholds. In fact, when planning the construction of deicing pad s, the FAA expressly “recommends an evaluation of aircraft development for a planning period of at least 10 years.”213 Concomitantly, the Agency must also assume the real world effect of its regulation will be to impose costs on airports that currently are below the departure thresholds. Response: After considering the comments and reviewing the information in its record, EPA is not promulgating a uniform ADF collection and treatment requirement for BAT; therefore this comment is not applicable to the fi nal rule. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, see the preamble to the final rule. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 61 EPA Fails to Account for Costs Associated with Selected BAT for Pavement Deicing EPA designates substitution of urea with alternative pavement deicers as BAT for pavement deicing at airports. ATA has not undertaken a detailed evaluation of the methodology EPA used to estimate the costs of substituting urea with other alternative pavement deicers and we do not endorse that methodology here. However, from our limited review of EPA’s cost analysis we observe that it is inadequate in several respects: • EPA doe s not account for certain cost elements, including: • o Costs associated with shipping alternative products to certain airports; • o Special handling needs associated with alternative products; and • o Supply issues

– shortages of pavement deicers may be m ore likely to emerge during severe events (e.g., the recent winter storms on the East Coast) where fewer approved alternatives are available. • o There appear to be side effects associated with using alternative deicers, including corrosion of aircraft ele ctrical components and carbon brakes, and deterioration of airfield equipment and pavement.214 [FOOTNOTE:214 See generally, ACRP, Synthesis Report

– 6, Impact of Airport Pavement Deicing Products on Aircraft and Airfield Infrastructure (2008).] These side effects bring large potential associated costs, including: • o Increased aircraft inspection and maintenance programs; • o More frequent replacement of aircraft components (electrical components, carbon brakes); and • o More frequent replacement of aircraf t components and/or airfield equipment and infrastructure. Response: EPA costed potassium acetate as an alternative pavement deicer to urea. Potassium acetate is widely available and used around the country and airports from all regions of the country have used potassium acetate successfully. For this reason, and because the commenter provided no data to support its assertion that it has corrosive side effects, EPA concludes it can be used without negative side effects. Potassium acetate can be purchas ed in a variety of different volumes and can be transported to airports by existing means used by individual airports to obtain urea airfield chemical deicers. EPA's estimated costs150 for switching from urea to potassium acetate include capital costs associa ted with application equipment and storage, as appropriate, as well as the differential chemical costs. Based on input from commenters, EPA included costs for storage tanks to hold large quantities of potassium acetate. See section 10.3 of the TDD for more details on airfield deicing costs. Lastly, while EPA based the compliance costs on potassium acetate, EPA does not prevent an airport from using any airfield deicing materials as long as they do not contain urea. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Com ment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 62 Certain airports may face unique costs related to particular issues posed by existing infrastructure. For example, SLC will need to relocate a cargo facility to accommodate its plans to construct deicing pads

– t his will cost over $42,000,000.215 [FOOTNOTE:215 Source: 10/16/09 e - mail from Kevin Robbins, SLC Director of Engineering and attached slides (Attachment 1)] Response: After considering the comments and reviewing the information in its record, EPA is not promulgating a uniform ADF collection and treatment requirement for existing sources; therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, see the preamble to the final rule. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 63 “Topography is a key cost factor in constructing a deicing facility.”216 EPA ignores this factor. The airports EPA uses to derive its CDP Capital Cost metric for pads are CAK, PIT and MSP

– clearly geologica l and water table conditions at these airports are very different from many of the airports that stand to be most impacted by the rule, many of which are built on coasts, including LGA, EWR, JFK, and BOS. Response: As the current NSPS requirements only apply to new airports, it is likely that any increase in costs would apply to the entire airport as well and not solely the CDP, as such, it is likely that the percentage of costs associated to the CDP will not vary wh en compared to the whole airport costs. Additionally, an airport authority building a new airport should have some flexibility in siting the airport to try and limit any costs incurred from difficult building conditions, including topography. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 64 EPA ignores the use of other supplemental techniques and activities used to achieve collection efficiencies at certain airports. For example, as noted above, the Agency uses MSP as one of the airports to derive its metric for estimating pad costs, but notes in its own site visit report only 70% of deicing at MSP takes place at deicing pads. Thus, EPA has effectively excluded costs associated with these activities from its considerat ion.151 Response: See response to comment number EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, excerpt number 62. Additionally, the barrier to entry analysis is at a facility level and is not sensitive to changes in the kind of detailed costs raised in this comment. See DC N AD01260 for more details on the barrier to entry analysis. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 65 EPA ignores costs associated with glycol recovery operations that rely primarily on deployment of GRVs. In Ma y 2009, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (“MWAA”) issued an RFP for provision of glycol collection and management services at IAD and DCA. In its Statement of Work setting out the requirements for the contract, MWAA specified that in addition to GRVs, contractors must provide: - Supervisor trucks and supervisors - Vacuum trucks and operators - Inflatable drain plugs - Mechanical drain inserts MWAA provides office space to its contractor, which is another cost that must be taken into account.217 [ Footnote:217 See Statement of Work for Aircraft Deicing fluid recovery, disposal, and recycling management services for Washington Dulles International Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (May 2009).] Response: See response to EPA - HQ - O W - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1

– 62 (above) C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 66 As noted below in Section V (C)(3)(c), not all airports EPA uses to derive its cost metrics for deicing pads include planning and design co sts. The Agency effectively accounts for this category of costs in part only. Response: See response to comment number EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, excerpt number 62. A new airport would not plan and design deicing pads separate from the airport itself. EPA anticipates costs and effort associated with the design and planning of these small items are likely a very small percentage compared to the design and planning associated with an entire airport. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EP A - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 67 EPA also does not take into account costs associated with construction, operation and/or maintenance of facilities necessary to support deicing facilities, particularly facilities designed to accommodate operations at our nat ion’s largest airports; examples include: • o Access and bypass taxiways for aircraft; • o Access roads to/from deicing areas for ground vehicles; • o Operations facilities: - Control center/tower (including operations control room and administrative office s); - Employee facilities for truck operators and supervisory staff, including locker room, bathrooms, break room, and parking; • o Snow storage and management space (for snow removed from CDPs); • o Glycol storage, premixing and pre - heating, unloading and loading, facilities; • o Fuel tanks and fueling stations for vehicles, including deicing trucks, GRVs, and support vehicles; • o Vehicle/equipment storage and parking; • o Vehicle/equipment maintenance facility; • o Diversion structures (to allow diversion of high and low - strength stormwater flows); • o Pump stations; • o Employee training152 Response: After considering the comments and reviewing the information in its record, EPA is not promulgating a uniform ADF collection and treatment requirement for exi sting source; therefore this comment is not applicable to the final BAT rule. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, see the preamble to the final rule. Additionally, many of these facilities are necessary regardless of a collection/treatment requirement for spent ADF. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 39 The EPA makes the assumption that airports with deicer containment facilities have all of the necessary infrastructure to handle the deicer - impacted stormwater that may be generated at the airport given this proposed rule, yet most AAAE airports have disag reed with this assumption, stating this proposal would put stress on these areas. Even those who have extensive deicing operations currently (apron deicing pads, GRVs, and glycol recycling facilities) would struggle to meet the proposed collection and disc harge limitations. Response: EPA has decided not to impose a collection and treatment standard for ADF at existing facilities as such this comment is not applicable to the final rule. See comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 excerpt 67. C_ADD_OTH - Addi tional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 41 Some costs, the EPA acknowledges, have been omitted, such as in Section 4.2.3 Centralized Deicing Pads of the Economic Analysis, which states that the agency “(i )n developing cost estimates for installing centralized deicing pads, the EPA did not impute an opportunity cost for the use of airport land taken by the pads.” Land - constrained airports are particularly concerned with this factor. Response: The final ru le does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports. For new airports, FAA requires that an airport sponsor plan for its deicing system(s) as an integral part of the overall design. See section V.B.3 of the fin al rule preamble. Because of the massive scale of construction required to build the runways, taxiways, aprons, access roads, parking, terminals, and other buildings associated with a new airport, the construction of centralized deicing pads do not pose a barrier to entry. See DCN AD01260 for more details on the barrier to entry analysis. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 50 AAAE believes that the cost of compliance to the rule as written does not take into consideration many items that will cause a financial burden down the line for many of our members. The EPA does not calculate the expense of monitoring equipment and consultants, or other airport staff who will need to assist with compliance.153 Response: EPA is not promulgating a collection and associated discharge requirement for spent ADF as part of the BAT requirements. Additionally, EPA anticipates that most airports will simply certify that they no longer use urea, and therefore will not require any substantial changes to the way they conduct deicing operations. Additionally, the NSPS barrier to entry analysis is on a facility wide basis and detailed costs, such as those referenced above, do not affect this analysis. See DCN AD01260 for more details on the barrier to entry analysis. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 96 For our cost estimates, we did not include the costs associated with any construction required for the relocation or replacement of disp laced tenant - or Port Authority - operated facilities (for example, all associated underground utilities or the rebuilding of structures and pavement). A feasible deicing pad system at our airport facilities would require the displacement of existing facili ties, and the costs of such displacement would be substantial. The estimates also do not include costs related to the use of land, including potential opportunity and land acquisition costs (this issue is discussed in more detail in our later comments). Th e cost estimates also do not include the costs of an on - site treatment system. As discussed in our earlier comments on AFBR systems, adequate land is not available for an AFBR system sized to treat the volume of aircraft deicing fluid and pad - related storm water that would be generated at our airports. In addition, the long - term storage associated with an AFBR system would require massive tanks, which again would not be feasible due to land constraints, the existing water table, the presence of existing uti lities, and construction logistics issues. In addition, our cost estimates focused on capital costs only. We did not explore the potential operating and maintenance costs for a deicing pad system, due to the limited time we had to comment. But based on our review of the EPA’s approach to the capital cost estimates, it is highly likely that the EPA underestimated the operating and maintenance costs as well. Response: EPA is not promulgating a national collection and associated discharge requirement for sp ent ADF as part of the requirements for existing sources. Additionally, EPA anticipates that most airports will simply certify that they no longer use urea, and therefore will not require any monitoring requirements or substantial changes to the way they conduct airfield deicing operations. See also the response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 41 (above). C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 47 Page 11 - 13, Section 11.3.2.1. EPA overstates the costs associated with initial monitoring and engineering for a facility that does not have deicing pads. The initial monitoring and engineering does not have to focus on the current outfalls and level of dis charge because once the pads are constructed the number of outfalls that may receive ADF will be vastly reduced. The initial monitoring in this case will be minimal and the engineering cost would relate to constructing the pads not on evaluating every outf all that currently receives ADF. Response: See response to comment number EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, excerpt number 62.154 C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 120 Increased POTW Capacity May Not Be Available to Airports. Many airports currently discharge ADF impacted stormwater to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW). Under the Proposed Rule, some of those airports may be required to collect and dispose of additional stormwater. EPA assumed that any airport currently discharging to a POTW will send any additional collected stormwater to the POTW rather than construct an on - site treatment facility. EPA cannot assume all POTWs are able to accept additional stormwater. Many airports discharging to POTWs have im posed flow or mass - based limits on their discharges. In order to discharge additional stormwater, additional storage may be necessary to ensure that effluent can be metered off to the POTW over a much longer period than airports currently have required. Th is adds cost to these airports. Response: EPA is not promulgating a national collection and associated discharge requirement for spent ADF as part of the requirements for existing sources, therefore this comment is no longer applicable. Additionally, fo r the purposes of the Barrier to Entry analysis, EPA assumed that a new source would be building an onsite treatment facility and not be sending their waste to a POTW. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 121 T he Costs Associated with Pavement Deicer - Related Requirements Are Underestimated. EPA assumes that airports that currently use urea to treat pavement will switch to non - urea based pavement deicers, namely potassium acetate. EPA’s costing analysis, however, provides inaccurate information, is not reflective of current conditions, and does not consider the costs associated with equipment purchases. EPA received 2002 - 2005 urea and potassium acetate cost data from several airports. In its cost model, EPA exclud ed data from Reno - Tahoe International Airport, “because the unit costs were significantly higher than the reported costs at other airports.”83 [Footnote 83: Memorandum, Cost Comparison of Potassium Acetate and Urea Airfield Deicers, EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 07 32 at 3 (March 2008).] EPA cannot simply exclude data because they exceed other airport costs, unless it provides a reasonable and logical explanation. EPA has not done so here. Costs may vary nationally based on availability, location, and other factors. If the costs are higher at one airport, it is likely indicative of the fact that other airports may also experience higher costs for various reasons. The bottom line is that airports will have to pay whatever the current price is to replace urea with potas sium acetate (or a similar product). EPA cannot assume that the lowest price paid in the country will reflect the nationally available price after it finalizes any deicing ELG. The Reno - Tahoe data should be factored into EPA’s analyses. Response: EPA col lected airfield deicing chemical cost data from eight airports (that used both urea and potassium acetate) including two airports located in Alaska. The unit costs reported by the Reno - Tahoe airport were significantly different than those reported by all o ther airports (including the Alaskan airports which would be most likely to experience higher costs) and were considered to be outlier data. EPA did assess costs associated with application equipment and storage costs for liquid airfield deicers in the fin al rule analysis. See section 10.3 of the TDD for more details of the data use for the costs estimate. Also, as is EPA’s standard practice, EPA selected baseline years upon which to collect data. Those years typically reflect the most recent data available at the time of data collection. EPA sets those years as the baseline and performs all its analysis with that baseline.155 C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 122 EPA’s cost analysis is based on potassi um acetate costs during 2002 - 2005. Current costs have risen significantly from the time period analyzed. Using the available data, EPA determined average potassium acetate costs to be $2.81 per gallon. However, as shown in Table 11, airports are currently experiencing much higher costs. Prices may increase more based on increased demand to replace urea. EPA’s analysis should reflect more current cost data. [See submittal for Table 11. Sample Current Airport Potassium Acetate Costs] Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Excerpt Number 121. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 123 EPA also does not analyze the potential costs associated with acquiring new equipment for applying alternative pavemen t deicers. Urea is pelletized and requires a certain type of equipment to spread. Alternative products may be pelletized, but also may be liquid or require different equipment than that used for urea. Such new equipment costs should be accounted for in the Proposed Rule. Response: EPA did analyze the potential costs associated with acquiring new equipment for applying alternative pavement deicers. EPA agrees with the commenter that a change from solid chemicals to liquid chemicals will require an airport to purchase or retrofit equipment to properly apply liquid chemical deicers. Therefore, EPA requested liquid chemical application equipment costs from vendors across the country. EPA obtained information on a variety of different application equipment opti ons and equipment of various sizes to assess costs by a large versus small or medium coverage area. Based on equipment assumptions and the relationship between urea and potassium acetate usage amounts, EPA estimated small, medium and non - hub airports would be required to spend approximately $203,000 for a potassium acetate application system and large airports would be required to spend approximately $348,000. See section 10.3.2.1 of the TDD for more details on mechanical application equipment. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 125 EPA Did Not Consider Costs of the Proposed New Source Performance Standards. As proposed, the NSPS would impact any new airport or any existing airport intending to construct a new runway. EPA needs to consider the costs associated with implementation of the proposed NSPS. Information about planned infrastructure improvements is readily available. Significant infrastructure projects such as a new airport or runway are planned well in advance. EPA also asked airports about expected infrastructure projects in the airport questionnaires. FAA forecasts provides general information that can be used to estimate the number of new runways expected to be built within the next 20 years. Current forecasts estimate approximately ten new runways will open over the next ten years. This information can be used to estimate the costs associated with the proposed NSPS. If EPA intends to expand the definition of a “new source” beyond that proposed to inc lude other airport construction projects, EPA must certainly assess the costs of NSPS.156 Response: In the proposed rule, “new source” included both new airports and new runways constructed at existing airports. In the final rule, only new airports are defined as new sources. New runways are not defined as new sources under the final rule. Therefore, for purposes of setting NSPS, EPA did not analyze the costs of the NSPS as they pertain to new runways at existing airports. See the preamble for a discu ssion of the factors EPA reviewed with respect to the NSPS requirement. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 130 EPA Must Acknowledge that the Cost of Funds Obtained from Sources Other than Garbs Is Represented by Their Opportunity Costs. When airports pay capital costs from sources other than borrowed funds (e.g., grants, airline charges, PFCs, accumulated surplus), these other sources are not costless. Each of these other sources of capital are greatly overco mmitted in the sense that airports have long lists of capital projects waiting to use these funding sources, and the total cost of the backlogged capital projects for a given airport typically far exceeds the projected rate at which these other funding sou rces will be available. For most airports, a new capital investment required for deicing compliance simply represents another call on the limited funding sources available that will somehow have to be accommodated. The compliance investment will likely be paid by deferring other projects that would otherwise have been funded from grants, airline charges, PFCs and/or accumulated operating surplus. The deferral of these other projects in order to pay the capital costs of compliance represents the opportunity cost of the compliance spending. By diverting capital from projects that would have been conducted in the absence of the compliance obligation, an airport loses the stream of future returns that would have been generated had the displaced projects occurred as planned. It is difficult to know what rate of return an airport might have earned had this capital not been shifted to deicing compliance. The displaced or deferred investment might have been some profit - making land - side or terminal project (e.g., upgr aded rental car facility, enhanced concession space in the terminal), in which case we might assume it would have generated at least some minimum hurdle rate of return for such projects, perhaps 10%/yr real or more. Or the displaced/deferred investment mig ht have been for some safety or security purpose, in which case it might be assumed to generate an annual return exceeding the social rate of time preference. In view of such uncertainties, we suggest that EPA simply assume an opportunity cost for airport deicing compliance investments of 7%/yr on a real basis, consistent with OMB guidance and traditional Agency practice for private sector opportunity costs. Response: EPA agrees with the commenter, and a 7 percent per year real interest rate was applied in the cost model. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1 - 13 As the Proposed Rule is written, it is unclear if CAK would be required to implement additional monitoring under certain conditions associated with demonstration of compliance and monitoring to meet the effluent limits. Since pavement deicer may be collect ed by the deicing pads, it is possible that pavement deicer will mix with ADF before being treated by the AFB system. Currently CAK monitors the COD concentration of the influent and effluent from the system. CAK does not differentiate between COD from ADF and COD from pavement deicers. If CAK were required to determine the COD157 contribution from ADF and pavement deicers to demonstrate compliance, additional monitoring would be required to track the constituents unique to pavement deicers or ADF. This additi onal monitoring could be costly and was not included in EPA’s economic analysis. Because the language pertaining to new source performance standards in the Proposed Rule is vague, it is possible that CAK would be required to implement additional monitoring to distinguish ADF contribution from existing sources and what the local permit writer determines as a new source. The collected runoff from deicing at existing and new sources would likely be routed to combined storage tanks and to the existing AFB syste m. Since new sources would be held to a higher collection standard than existing sources, complex monitoring would be required to determine the contribution from each source. Once the runoff mixes in storage tanks, it would be impossible to determine which fraction of the runoff in that tank would be held to the new source performance standards and which fraction would not. It is likely that individual continuous monitoring would be required at multiple locations, which would be expensive and increase CAK’s annual operating expenses. To a relatively small operation like ours, these additional monitoring costs are significant to CAK, especially in these economic times. In addition, these possible expenses do not appear to be included in EPA’s economic analysi s. Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform collection or treatment requirement for spent ADF as part of the requirements for existing sources. Therefore existing sources will not have to monitor for ADF. Additionally, as defined in the final rule, a new source is any new Primary Airport from which there is or may be a discharge of pollutants of which construction is commenced after the promulgation of this rule. New airports will not be required to monitor wastestreams to determine the source of the wastestream (new source or existing source) as suggested by the commenter. Furthermore, airports are not required to determine the COD contribution from pavement deicers versus ADF. Therefore, the commenter’s concerns about additional monitoring are not a pplicable to the final rule. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1 - 15 From the discussion above, it appears that EPA set the treatment effluent limits in terms of Total COD without realizing that measurements from the ALB AFB system were in terms of Soluble COD. If the effluent limits in the Propose Rule remain as Total COD, the CAK AFB system may require improvements to meet the limits. Because influent concentrations at CAK are much greater than at ALB, total COD concentrations and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentrations at CAK are generally greater than at ALB. Therefore, to meet the effluent limits as Total COD, CAK would be required to implement additional solids removal to remove the insoluble componen t of the COD (from the TSS). It might also be necessary to reduce the daily load that is processed by the existing AFB system, but that would necessitate additional storage since the storage tanks would be emptied more slowly. EPA did not include the poten tial costs of increased solids handling or additional storage in the economic analysis. Response: See comment code BAT_COD, response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 108.158 C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - O W - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1 - 16 Earlier results demonstrate that the 99th percentile daily effluent concentration and 97th percentile weekly effluent concentration from the AFB systems at CAK are higher than at ALB which was used as the basis for setting effluent limits. If the CAK AFB system were required to meet the effluent limits as described in the Propose Rule, significant changes would be required to ensure compliance. To achieve the effluent limits stated in the Propose Rule, CAK would be required to under - load their existing AFB system. By operating their AFB system at loading rates well below our treatment capacity, our effluent concentrations would decrease, allowing compliance with the proposed limits. However, this would greatly reduce the capacity of our existing deicer management system. The existing storage and AFB system at CAK were designed assuming that the AFB would operate at its capacity; therefore, if CAK is forced to operate at less that the system’s capacity, increases in system capacity wo uld be necessary. CAK would likely have to add storage to hold water longer in the tanks. Also, to avoid storing runoff long enough to overlap into separate deicing seasons, CAK may be required to add additional treatment capacity and expand their existing AFB system. Both the capital and operating costs associated with these changes that would be necessary to ensure compliance with the Proposed Rule would be extensive. These costs were not included in EPA’s economic analysis. Response: EPA is not promulg ating a uniform collection and associated discharge requirement for spent ADF as part of the requirements for existing dischargers. EPA chose to not include data from the CAK system in the analysis for the final rule. See comment code BAT_PER response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, excerpt 110. Additionally, CAK was selected as part of the questionnaire judgment sample and was not one of the statistically sampled model facilities used to demonstrate industry wide costs. As such, any costs modele d for this facility are not part of the economic analysis as those costs are represented by another model facility. C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1 - 19 Since the determination of a new source is left to the discretion of the local permit writer, CAK cannot be sure which improvements might trigger the new source collection standard. As described above, if one of the planned improvements at CAK triggers the new source collection standard, significant improveme nts to the deicer management system may be required (e.g. additional monitoring, storage, treatment capacity). The costs associated with these improvements were not included in EPA’s economic analysis. Response: See the response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, excerpt 125 (above). C_ADD_OTH - Additional costs – Other Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1245 - 10 EPA assumes no cost for airports with BAT currently in place There are significant costs associated with maintaining and ope rating a glycol management program that utilizes deicing pads and/or other collection159 technologies. Depreciation, interest on initial capital investment, maintenance, and operations all carry significant economic burdens to an airport authority after the i nitial capital project is completed. At MSP, the annual operations and maintenance of the glycol management program is well in excess of one million dollars per year. As previously submitted to the EPA, MSP's average cost of operation is nearly $1.4 millio n per year. Additionally, the EPA has not included the full breadth of the collection, recycling and processing facilities in the cost analysis. The EPA should review its cost calculations and adequately reflect all costs associated with implementing the E LG in its evaluation of economic impacts. The assumption of no cost of implementation or annual operating costs is misleading. Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform collection or treatment requirement for spent ADF as part of the requirements for e xisting sources. Therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. C_AFB_BASIS - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 72 The “COD Load - Normalized Cost” metrics used to derive AFBR capital and O&M costs each include the number of days a system is operated in the denominator. As a result, the longer a system must be operated, the lower the assumed O&M costs

– a result that just does not correspond to reality. Thus, two systems handlin g exactly the same COD load annually will have vastly different costs depending on the length of the season. Response: After considering the comments and reviewing the information in the record, EPA is not promulgating a uniform ADF collection or treatment requirement for existing sources. In addition, for new sources, EPA’s economic analysis of whether the final NSPS regulations create a “barrier to entry” was performed at an aggregate facility - wide level. The barrier to entry analysis was not b ased on the detailed costs of AFB treatment but on the facility wide costs associated with DIA. Therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. See DCN AD01260 for more details on the NSPS barrier to entry analysis. However, to respond neve rtheless, EPA agrees with comments that indicated using the number of operating days in the denominator of the equation used to estimate annual costs actually lowers costs the longer the system is operated. To correct the equation used to estimate annual o perating costs for the AFB treatment system, EPA has removed the operating days and uses the following equation that is based directly on the amount of ADF collected annually. Annual AFB Treatment Reactor O&M: ADF Use (gal/yr) x Percent Capture x $4.90 uni t cost of O&M per gallon treated. Additionally EPA assumed for all costing that POTWs were not available for wastewater treatment and all wastewater would be treated on site. C_AFB_BASIS - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 80 Normalizing AFBR costs on a $/COD load/day basis is not reasonable The use of COD load as a normalizing parameter is a significant and unwarranted oversimplification of the approach to designing AFBR systems. AFBR treatment system design, while a function of influent COD load, is primarily based on COD loading per cubic foot of media. Although the ALB system is capable of treating a higher daily load of COD, the ALB system has a calculated influent design loading of 0.63 lb C OD/ft3/day compared to the CAK system which has a calculated design loading of 0.9 lb COD/ft3/day. This difference in160 design loadings can make a significant difference in system sizing. For example, for JFK, a system designed based on the ALB loading would consist of 5 reactor vessels. In contrast, for JFK, a system designed based on the CAK loading would consist of 14 reactor vessels. These differences in vessel sizing are substantial and would have significant cost implications. EPA utilized construction, operation and maintenance costs for AFBR treatment systems installed at ALB and CAK to develop a cost metric for estimation of AFBR installation and operational costs at covered airports. EPA normalized the costs to the COD loading rate. As noted in the T DD, EPA attempted to normalize AFBR cost to design flow;243 however, the use of flow was rejected as a normalizing parameter because there did not appear to be a relationship between the flow rate and AFBR cost observed at CAK and ALB. In evaluation of eac h system, the basis for this difference is evident. CAK collects stormwater containing deicing fluid from a deicing pad resulting in relatively high strength influent. In contrast, the ALB collection system is comparable to a gate collection system resulti ng in lower strength stormwater. While the cost of the AFBR can be related to the daily load, the concentration and required flow have a significant impact on overall system cost with respect to storage capacity and space allocation. Discussions of AFBR re actor costs with Roger Owens (a designer of the ALB reactors) indicated that costs for a reactor are inversely proportional to COD load at lower COD loading rates (i.e., reactor costs in terms of cost per pound of COD treated increase with decreasing COD d aily loading). This is not surprising and one only has to look as far as RSMeans Building and Construction Cost data to see that for basic equipment (e.g., storage tanks) cost per gallon increases as storage volume decreases. Put another way, the cost of a reactor capable of treating 1,000 lbs. of COD per day will be more expensive on a $/cubic foot basis compared to a reactor sized to treat 4,000 lbs. of COD per day. Since the physical size of the reactor is directly related to treatment capacity, smaller reactors with lower treatment capacity will cost more. In addition, all AFBR systems, no matter what their size, will require basic components such as chemical dosing systems, gas handling systems, sludge handling systems, storage tanks, in - line monitoring equipment and process control systems. For many of these components, cost is relatively insensitive to size: a pH monitoring system will cost the same regardless of the size and capacity of the reactor. Further, installation costs are not expected to chan ge significantly between a reactor sized to treat 4,000 lbs. of COD per day versus a reactor sized to treat 1,000 lbs. per day: they both require the same amount of time and labor to install; they both have the same number of physical piping connections to make. Thus, the cost per pound of COD treated per day will increase as the size of the AFBR system decreases. EPA’s assumption of a constant cost per pound of COD treated per day is incorrect and results in an underestimation of system costs for smaller A FBR treatment systems. Response: See comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 excerpt 72 However, to respond nevertheless, EPA agrees with the commenters recommendations for improving the methodology used to estimate capital costs of AFB treatment systems. The capital cost approach that was used at proposal assumed a linear relationship between ADF use and ADF percent capture to predict capital costs for AFB treatment systems and did not consider minimum capital costs for small systems or the econom y of scale for larger systems. EPA agrees that AFB treatment systems, regardless of size, will require basic components such as chemical dosing systems, gas handling systems, sludge handling systems, storage tanks, in - line monitoring equipment, and process control systems. For many of these components, cost is independent of treatment system size. To assist EPA with developing costs for small AFB treatment reactors, industry provided EPA during the comment period with a cost curve for multiple facilities th at shows a more appropriate general relationship between cost and COD load for primary treatment components for systems designed to treat between 500 and 7,000 lbs/day of COD. The industry - provided cost curve takes into account the volume (cubic feet) of m edia needed to treat COD loads ranging from 500 to 7,000 lbs/day. The industry - provided cost curve shows that the cost per pound of COD removal increases rapidly for smaller load removal systems because of the economy of scale with the reactor and separato r system, and the cost for support buildings and facilities is relatively constant and161 not tied to COD loading. Therefore, for the final rule, EPA has incorporated the industry - provided costing curve to develop capital costs for the AFB systems costed in t he rule. See TDD Section 10.2.2.2 for details of EPA's AFB costing approach. C_AFB_BASIS - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 54 EPA assumed that AFBR treatment technology is easily applicable to the Port Authority airports. The AFBR treatment technology presents significant implementation hurdles that EPA failed to evaluate completely, including higher capital and O&M costs, operational challenges, storage and piping infrastructure, and land avai lability. EPA’s docket contains documents that reveal fundamental underlying problems with EPA’s methodology and selection of AFBR systems as a model BAT technology. These issues are discussed below. EPA missed a fundamental consideration that applies to e very treatment technology that it analyzed: whether airports have enough room to install them. The Port Authority could not immediately install any of EPA’s analyzed treatment systems, regardless whether EPA selected UF/RO, MVR and distillation, aerated po nds, or land application and constructed wetlands. Each would require large amounts of land for storm water storage. As discussed in Section V, all of the Port Authority airports are land constrained and would not be able to install large storm water stora ge areas or treatment facilities on site. In addition, the use of MVR119 and UF/RO120 would require the discharge of treated storm water to a POTW for further treatment, which is also not a feasible option for the Port Authority airports. Further, the cost s of operating an MVR/distillation system are related to the volume of ADF contaminated storm water. The high volumes of storm water expected to be collected (pursuant to EPA’s Proposed Rule) at the Port Authority airports would thus make any treatment tec hnology economically infeasible (i.e., high O&M cost) based solely on the collection mandate.121 Using the UF/RO treatment system could result in clogging of the filter and membrane at some airports if the influent contains other impurities such as metals or bacteria, and if there is frequent variability in effluent temperature.12 Response: See comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 excerpt 72 C_AFB_BASIS - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232. 1 - 58 The AFBR treatment systems at two model airports consist of two reactors each, but with different sizes and volumes. The volume of each reactor at ALB is 3,425 ft3 with the COD design loading rate of 5,200 lb COD/day; each reactor at CAK is 2,515 ft 3 with the COD design loading rate of 3,400 lb COD/day.131 The reactors at CAK were designed for high influent concentrations (i.e., 19,000 mg/l) since only the deicing pads are used for collection. At ALB, the combination of deicing pad and GRVs are used for collecting ADF - contaminated storm water; therefore, each reactor was designed to handle low influent concentrations (i.e., 5,000 mg/l). In addition, the reactors at ALB were designed to handle a higher treatment flow rate (i.e., 100 gallons per minute) with low concentrations to accommodate the storage capacity of nearly 11 million gallons, while the much lower storage capacity at CAK (i.e., 1.5 million gallons) allowed it to design a lower design flow rate of 15 gallons per minute with high concentrati ons. As discussed in the above paragraph, the size of the AFBR treatment systems at each of the two model airports is unique to their operations, and depends on the COD loading (i.e. ADF usage), ADF storm water collection method, concentration of collected ADF - contaminated storm water, and storage capacity. All of these factors are going to differ greatly from airport to airport and thus the size of the AFBR treatment system would differ. AFBR treatment sizing is a very important issue that was not covered by EPA in the Proposed Rule. EPA failed to analyze and discuss how the factors specific to each airport162 would affect the AFBR system components and size. As a comparison, the Port Authority estimated the number of reactors that would be required for JFK, E WR, and LGA based on the estimated 2008/2009 deicing season COD loadings. For the purposes of equal comparison, it was assumed that the size of the reactors would be the same as at ALB (i.e., 5,200 lb COD/day, 3,425 ft3, and same dimensions132). The estima ted number of reactors required to treat ADF - contaminated storm water at JFK, EWR, and LGA are 12, 16, and 4 reactors,133 respectively. Response: See comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 excerpt 72 C_AFB_BASIS - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 59 EPA did not take into account the implications of a larger AFBR treatment system on design, construction, and operations. Based on discussions with AFBR design experts,134 the Port A uthority learned that the smaller sized reactors like those at ALB or CAK can be easily transported (via truck) and installed; the larger reactors would need special permits for transportation and would likely require assembly on site, which would increase the capital cost. Moreover, there likely would be additional design engineering involved to optimize the system for the operation of multiple reactors, adding further to the capital cost. Operation of a larger system also would require more resources such as labor, monitoring, and maintenance, resulting in higher O&M costs. Costing issues related to the AFBR treatment system are discussed separately in the section below. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports. Therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. C_AFB_BASIS - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 60 EPA failed to account for the relationship bet ween the influent COD load and effluent COD concentration. The detailed analysis of ALB and CAK operational data, as conducted by ACI

– NA, demonstrates a clear relationship between the influent COD loading and effluent COD concentration. The graphical repre sentation of nine seasons of ALB performance data and one season of CAK’s performance data, as plotted by ACI

– NA, reveals an emerging pattern where effluent COD concentrations are not constant and vary with the actual COD loading. The effluent COD concentr ations are low when the influent COD loading is well below the maximum COD loading capacity of the reactor. However, the effluent COD concentrations start increasing considerably once the influent COD loading increases beyond 75 percent of the maximum COD loading capacity for the reactor. The existence of this relationship between the influent COD load and effluent COD concentration signifies that these parameters have a direct impact on the design and operation of the AFBR treatment systems. Based on this relationship, in order to comply with EPA’s proposed COD effluent limits, airports would have to design AFBR treatment systems to handle much larger COD loadings than their baseline COD loading estimates. This design requirement would translate to higher c osts in terms of designing larger reactors and/or larger storage structures to meet the proposed COD effluent limits.163 Response: See comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 excerpt 72 Additionally, see Comment BAT_VAR 1240 excerpt 74. Biological treatment systems such as the AFB reactors require extended periods (e.g., days) to grow sufficient amounts of biomass to react to changes in influent COD concentrations. Sudden increases in influent COD levels to the reactors will result in sudden increas es in effluent COD levels since there is insufficient biomass in the system to convert the COD to carbon dioxide and methane gas. To dampen influent COD concentration spikes that would ultimately result in effluent COD concentration spikes, EPA has include d costs for storage tanks for collected ADF contaminated stormwater. The storage tanks will provide both flow and concentration equalization prior to AFB treatment. Including flow and concentration equalization prior to treatment will allow the AFB reactor s to gradually adjust biomass levels to accommodate slight changes in COD loadings. C_AFB_BASIS - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 61 Information regarding the AFBR treatment system at ALB was p rovided verbally. Footnote 3 in the AFBR Cost Memorandum137 states that the capital cost of ALB’s AFBR system was provided verbally. This method of acquiring the cost information is very crude, especially considering only two airports are involved as model airports in estimating the AFBR capital cost. EPA should have used a more reliable source such as a written document or a spreadsheet from ALB.138 If actual records of capital costs were not available, then EPA should not have relied on ALB as the source for its model technology. Response: See comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 excerpt 72 In addition, See EPA response to comment (C_AFB_Basis) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Excerpt Number 80. C_AFB_BASIS - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - Ba sis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 62 Footnote 3 in the AFBR Cost Memorandum states that the “capital costs were escalated by 18.07 percent to adjust costs from 1999 to 2006 dollars using Bank of Canada Consumer Price Index Calculator.” It is unclear as to why EPA used the Bank of Canada infla tion calculator, which is based on Canadian CPI data. There are several inflation calculators available based on United States CPI data, such as U.S Department of Labor

– Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”).139 Using the Bank of Canada CPI calculator,140 th e Port Authority obtained the inflation rate of 16.67 percent (from 1999 to 2006) instead of the inflation rate of 18.07 percent that EPA determined. Using the BLS inflation calculator based on U.S. CPI data, the inflation rate from 1999 to 2006 is 21 perc ent (higher than 18.07 percent value that EPA determined) and to 2009 is 29 percent. All these discrepancies clearly demonstrate that EPA’s cost estimation methodology is seriously flawed, thus invalidating the cost analysis for the AFBR treatment system. In addition, according to the BLS website, the CPI is defined as a “measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services.... The CPI reflects spending patterns for each of two popula tion groups: all urban consumers and urban wage earners and clerical workers.”141 Therefore, the capital cost escalation to a future year should not be based on the CPI data but on a more representative source such as cost construction data developed by pr oject location (geographically).164 Response: See comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 excerpt 72 However, to respond nevertheless, to assist EPA with developing costs for AFB treatment reactors, industry provided EPA with a cost curve for multipl e facilities that shows a more appropriate general relationship between cost and COD load for primary treatment components for systems designed to treat between 500 and 7,000 lbs/day of COD. EPA has incorporated these data to develop the final rule AFB cap ital costs. The industry provided cost curve takes into account the volume (cubic feet) of media needed to treat COD loads ranging from 500 to 7,000 lbs/day. The industry provided cost curve shows that the cost per pound of COD removal increases rapidly fo r smaller load removal systems because of the economy of scale with the reactor and separator system, and the cost for support buildings and facilities is relatively constant and not tied to COD loading. The cost curve provided by industry eliminated the n eed to scale costs for Albany to 2006 dollars, therefore eliminating the need to adjust costs using the Bank of Canada Consumer Price Index Calculator. C_AFB_BASIS - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 12 32.1 - 70 In calculating the AFBR capital cost, EPA used different cost factors depending upon the type of collection technology used. For example, AFBR capital cost factors of $1,659, $1,185, and $790 $/lb/day were used for the GRV, block and pump, and de icing pad collection technologies, respectively.153 Neither the TDD nor the Airport Deicing Costing Database Dictionary explains the development of the cost factors for block and pump and deicing pads. Table 11 - 10 of the TDD154 and Table 1 of the AFBR Cost Memorandum155 list the GRV cost factor of $1,659 $/lb/day, which was calculated based on the average value of two model airports’ AFBR capital cost and design COD loading. However, neither one of the model airports used GRVs exclusively for ADF - contaminat ed storm water collection. Hence, it is unclear how EPA decided to assign the calculated capital cost factor of $1,659 to AFBR systems paired with GRVs, when it is actually based on the use of deicing pads at each model airport. In addition, Table 11 - 15 of the TDD lists only one capital cost factor of $1,659 with no distinction made to the associated technology type. EPA’s cost estimates for the AFBR system with deicing pads are wrong. In the TDD, EPA refers to only one capital cost factor for the AFBR trea tment system ($1,659 /lb/day regardless of the collection technology used). However, the Airport Deicing Costing Database uses an unexplained cost factor of $790 $/lb/day for the AFBR treatment system used in conjunction with deicing pads. This error inval idates EPA’s costing model and signifies a major flaw since this cost factor was used to estimate the AFBR treatment system (with deicing pad) cost for all of the airports in the database. For example, the AFBR capital cost estimates for the Port Authority airports in EPA’s Airport Deicing Costing Database are approximately $21.1 million for JFK, $21.9 million for LGA, and $50.7 million for EWR. The costs estimated using the EPA cost factor of $1,659 $/lb/day are approximately $44.2 million for JFK, $46.0 m illion for LGA, and $106.4 million for EWR. The EPA estimated values in the Airport Costing Database are less than 50 percent of the values estimated based on the EPA - identified cost factor. This is a significant error in EPA’s cost calculations, which mos tly invalidates the Agency’s conclusions based thereon.165 Response: See comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 excerpt 72 C_AFB_BASIS - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 71 Another import ant factor used in calculating AFBR capital and annual O&M costs is the number of AFBR treatment plant operating days. EPA relied on responses to the airport questionnaire to obtain this information, which EPA assumed to be equal to the number of months de icing is performed at an airport. As per EPA’s AFBR cost calculation model, the number of deicing months has been set equal to the number of months for the treatment plant operation. This assumption is convenient but one that oversimplifies the fact that t he duration of treatment plant operation is a function of various factors such as precipitation amount, ADF concentration, storage capacity, and reactor capacity; all of these intertwined factors would determine the duration of AFBR treatment plant operati on during the deicing season. This is confirmed by the data from ALB, where deicing is performed during five months (or 150 days) but the operating period for the treatment plant is 198 days on average.156 As a result, the AFBR capital and annual O&M costs in EPA’s Airport Deicing Costing Database may be significantly overestimated or underestimated (based on the number of deicing months reported by an airport) due to this anomaly in the cost model. In either case, this type of analysis should not be used a s a foundation for future regulation. Response: See comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 excerpt 72 However, to respond nevertheless, EPA agrees with commenter that using the number of operating days in the denominator of the equation used to e stimate annual costs is not the best approach. To improve the equation used to estimate annual operating costs for the AFB treatment system, EPA has removed the operating days and uses the following equation that is based directly on the amount of ADF coll ected annually. Annual AFB Treatment Reactor O&M: ADF Use (gal/yr) x Percent Capture x $4.90. See Chapter 10 of the TDD for additional detail on costing of the AFB system. C_AFB_BASIS - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 72 The capital cost factor for the AFBR treatment system was estimated in terms of COD loading per day, while the other two options were based on the gallons of storm water treated per day or season. This “apples to oranges” metho dology does not provide an equal comparison between the cost factors for each treatment technology. Furthermore, just like the AFBR treatment system, the capital cost factors for the UF/RO treatment system were based on one airport’s operation and cannot b e deemed reliable. Similarly, the capital cost factor for the MVR/distillation treatment system was based on two airports’ operations and the comparison between the two confirms there is no linear relationship between them. The capital cost for both treatm ent systems is similar (approximately $20 million) while the treatment size varies significantly from 3.3 million gallons/season for DEN to 10 million gallons/season for Cincinnati Northern Kentucky International Airport (“CVG”).157 The O&M cost for each t reatment technology was also based on very limited data and cannot be deemed reliable. For example, the UF/RO O&M cost is an estimated value from a vendor product brochure rather than an actual airport operation.166 Response: See comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 excerpt 72. However, to respond nevertheless, . EPA agrees with the comment that comparing the AFB system costs based on COD loading to other recycle and recovery technologies (e.g., evaporation and reverse osmosis) that are base d on flow is comparing “apples to oranges”, EPA is not basing the rule on recycle and recovery technologies. Additionally, cost of treatment was not the sole component of selecting AFB as the basis for NSPS. In addition to cost, the Recover/recycle techno logies separate the pollutants from the clean water, which results in a concentrated waste stream that an airport must deal with. While the airport may elect to recycle this material. EPA is unable to assume that nationwide this would occur and would then have to cost for additional treatment or disposal of this waste stream. Additionally, once ADF - contaminated stormwater has been collected, the airport has a variety of alternatives for control, including disposal at a POTW, off - site recycle and recovery , on - site recycle and recovery, or on - site treatment and disposal. Each of these alternatives should be considered by an airport when selecting the appropriate method for managing the collected ADF and meeting its BAT - based permit limit (which, for ADF col lection and treatment at existing airports, will be determined by the permit writer on a site - specific basis). For its analysis of this industry, EPA selected the AFB reactor treatment system as the basis of costs because of its demonstrated capability to remove glycols from wastewater. If AFB treatment systems are more expensive to install and operate when compared to other treatment alternatives, basing the costs on AFB treatment should provide a more conservative cost estimate for individual airports. Finally, EPA disagrees with this commenter that airport provided estimates are not reliable in all cases. C_AFB_BASIS - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 104 While an airport with deicing pads may meet the collection requirements, some airports do not have an adequate treatment system in place to actually treat what is collected to meet the proposed COD limit. EPA has wrongly assumed that all airports with deicing pads meet both the collection a nd treatment requirements. Response: See comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 excerpt 72. C_AFB_BASIS - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 110 Costs Basis Used in AFB Treatment System C ost Projections Are Inappropriate. ACI - NA has identified a number of problems with EPA’s methodology for assigning costs for the treatment technology identified as BAT. In the supporting document ”Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for Anaerobic Fluid Bed Tre atment of ADF Contaminated Stormwater,”79 EPA states that the capital and operating costs associated with AFB treatment facilities used as BAT can be described with a linear relationship to annual COD load at a given airport. This implies that the cost per pound for treatment remains constant regardless of the size of the treatment system. ACI - NA assessed the EPA cost methodology and compared the approach to its understanding of the AFB design and cost methodologies used by the industry in preparing designs and opinions of probable cost for AFB deicer treatment systems. The following approach is based on deicer management system elements that are considered to be “Primary Treatment Components” and “Conveyance and Material Management Components.” The design a nd cost analysis of167 the Primary Treatment Components can be performed through an understanding of the COD load to be treated, excluding site specific costs for items such as land availability/cost and geotechnical considerations. The design and cost of the Conveyance and Material Management Components are even more highly dependent on site specific infrastructure, collection requirements, and volumes of stormwater to be processed. It should be noted that, while the concerns presented below are expressed spe cifically for the use of AFB as BAT, they are generally applicable to any deicer management system that uses any type of deicer processing (treatment) system. In typical application, the Primary Treatment Components of the AFB system are considered by desi gners of the treatment systems to include: • A pair of anaerobic fluidized bed reactors with an associated pair of media - solids separation units. This pairing of reactors and separators is considered as the unit process for the system, with provisions made to use the two reactors in both parallel or series mode to support treatment requirements under different conditions. The use of two reactors is also important to achieve redundancy. The size and cost of the reactors and separators have the most direct re lationship to COD load removed of the various system components. • Activated Carbon Media. The design and operational parameters for the ALB system are based on use of activated carbon as the media used to support the attached growth process for the micro - organisms in the treatment reactor. The reactor heights, reactor flow distribution systems, and fluidization rates are based on research done to support development of the ALB activated carbon system. The cost of carbon has a direct relationship to COD loa d removed. • Interior Support Systems. Systems that support the operation of the reactors and separators include flow regulation, nutrient supply, pH adjustment, gas collection, and water heating. Support systems also include electrical, standby power, con trols, instrumentation, HVAC, office, and laboratory. Support systems within the treatment building have some relationship to COD load but not as direct of a relationship as reactor and separator size. This is especially true for small COD load capacity sy stems, where the support systems become a large part of the total cost and lead to a “minimum buy - in” cost concept for AFB systems. • Treatment Building and Exterior Treatment Support Systems. This includes the building used to house the treatment unit pro cess and support systems. There are elements located outside of the building, such as access and parking, and the gas flare/piping that are typically considered part of the treatment system. Like the Interior Support Systems, the Building and Exterior Supp ort Systems have a less direct relationship to COD load. It should be noted that like the ALB system, it is acceptable to locate the reactors outside of the building, although this can result in additional challenges for the system operators. There are a s eries of Deicer Management System components under the category of “Conveyance and Material Management Systems” that are not included by EPA. While these system components have a tangential relationship to treatment, their design and cost drivers are much more strongly related to site infrastructure, component location, effluent disposal options, site topography, collection requirements, and volumes to be processed than to COD load to be treated. Thus, they are highly variable site - by - site, meaning costs wi ll vary significantly. • Conveyance from Collection to Storage. Conveyance from collection to storage is one of the largest, if not the largest, cost component in many deicer management systems. Most conveyance systems are well beyond the 1,000 feet of pip ing assumed by EPA and in fact need to extend more than the entire length of runways (>10,000 feet).80 The costs for conveyance from collection to storage are very site specific and require a separate analysis by EPA. • Storm Water Storage. The AFB treatme nt systems are sized for a particular COD load removal capacity. While treatment system load capacity can affect storage capacity to a small degree, the required storage capacity is primarily a function of collected flow volumes and COD concentrations. • E qualization. Storage structures upstream of treatment are sometimes provided with mixers to provide a small equalization of COD concentration. However, the effect of these mixers is relatively small because of the extreme day - to - day variation in influent C OD concentrations sent to storage. The equalization effect for treatment is instead provided as an integral part of the flow management from within the treatment system by controlling flow rates into the treatment system to hit target COD influent load rat es as the COD concentrations vary. There is typically not a separate storage based equalization system. EPA erroneously assumed a storage - based equalization aspect to treatment. • Conveyance from Storage to Treatment. In most cases, it is most cost effecti ve to locate storage near treatment (as is the case with the CAK systems). In many cases, this is not feasible due to land constraints168 and the need to locate system components in areas that have minimal effect on airport operations and safety. Conveyance f rom Storage to Treatment is also very site - specific and requires a separate cost analysis from EPA. • Biosolids Handling. The AFB systems produce biosolids requiring disposal. While the production of these is part of the AFB treatment process, the handling of the solids is not part of the AFB BAT. The solids handling needs are site specific (e.g., could be discharged to POTW, could be dewatered on site, could be land applied) and costs for biosolids need to be considered separately from the AFB treatment co sts. For larger system, these costs will be significant. • Effluent Disposal. Treated effluent must be discharged either to a POTW or to surface waters. The costs for the disposal piping (and in some cases pumping) are not related to treated COD load, are very site specific, and can vary widely from one airport to the next. Those costs are influenced by location of the treatment system relative to the disposal point and the flow rates that are conveyed. The location - based considerations include length of th e pipe or channel run, intervening infrastructure, topography, and soil characteristics. In cases where treated effluent pumping is required and intervening infrastructure must be navigated, the costs for effluent disposal can become significant. EPA must include all costs, including those described above, to more accurately assess not only Primary Treatment Components that are primarily dependent on COD load, but also Conveyance and Materials Management Components that are primarily dependent upon site - sp ecific factors. In addition, EPA’s estimated costs associated with AFB Treatment using a linear relationship is flawed when site - specific factors associated with Conveyance and Materials Management and siting are considered, especially for smaller faciliti es. Response: See comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 excerpt 72 Additionally, see EPA comment response EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Excerpt Number 80. EPA agrees with the comment that the costs for the AFB treatment system for Albany include the AFB reactors and do not include tanks for storage of ADF contaminated stormwater or piping to convey the stormwater to the tanks and treatment system. Therefore, costs for storage tanks and piping have been calculated separately and added to the overal l cost for the entire treatment system. See EPA comment code C_STORAGE response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 73 and EPA comment code C_PIPING response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 91. C_AFB_CAP - Anaerob ic fluidized bed treatment - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1205 - 2 To be in compliance at military facilities for deicing operations, first, the EPA and or state and local environmental authories must agree upon a specific site on the airport grounds where best the deicing fluid run - off can best be contained and or routed into a scrubber/filter before mixing with the local waste water system. To do this, dams must be installed or designed into the ramp to allow proper run off into a catch basin. Also the cost of a filter scrubber system would approximately cost $500,000 to $1M dollars with approximately $50,000 a year to maintain. Inititially this would be a half billion to 1 billion dollar bill bu t compared to overflow clean up costs would pay for itself within the first 5 years. We cannot stop deicing nor change the chemically mixture unless we choose to risk passenger safety. However, if properly devised and planned this proposal should be an eas y sell to the general public. Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. Military facilities are out of scope of the final rule.169 C_AFB_CAP - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 44 EPA Also Misappl ies Its Own Formula for Estimating Capital Costs for AFBRs at the Tier One Airports The misapplication of its own formula lead EPA to underestimate the capital costs of AFBRs by $319,000,000. In turn, this mistake leads the Agency to underestimate annual c osts by an additional $18.9 million. This origin of this huge disparity between the costs that EPA should have derived using its formula and the costs it reported in the TDD, Notice and other record documents is not immediately apparent. This is precisely because the cost estimates EPA reports for each airport cannot be derived using EPA’s formula.168 Only after extremely detailed review of the record

– specifically, detailed analysis to unveil the actual calculations imbedded in the ACCESS databases and Ex Cel - based economic models

– that the source of the disparity becomes clear. Stated most bluntly: EPA does not use the cost metric to calculate AFBR costs that it says it uses. In the TDD and elsewhere, EPA carefully explains the derivation of its cost metr ic for estimating AFBR capital costs. The Agency reports that based on data from ALB and CAK and careful analysis, the value of this metric, the “COD Load Normalized Cost,” is $1659 per pound of COD treated per day ($1690/lb COD/day). However, when it calc ulates AFBR capital costs for Tier One airports it uses $790/lb COD/day. In fact, EPA only uses the $1659 value to calculate costs for AFBRs constructed to treat COD collected using GRVs; it uses still another figure ($1185) to calculated costs of AFBRs co nstructed to treat COD collected using a “plug and pump” system. These values are listed in the “Factors” table in EPA’s Airport Deicing Costing Database, Document - 1090, as “AFBR_DeiceCapCostFactor,” “AFBR_GRVCapCostFactor,” and “AFBR_BlockPumpCapCostFact or.” There is no rational justification for concluding that the cost of treating COD is dependent on how the COD is collected and EPA provides no such explanation. The most important point, however, is the initial point: EPA’s detailed explanation of its m ethodology for estimating AFBR capital costs does not match the methodology it actually used to calculate these costs. Response: After considering the comments and reviewing the information in its record, EPA is not promulgating an ADF collection require ment for BAT, additionally the NSPS barrier to entry analysis for the treatment estimate is at a much higher level of aggregation and therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. See DCN AD01290 for details on how EPA evaluated treatment cos ts for the purposes of the barrier to entry analysis. However, EPA acknowledges a documentation error in the supporting documents to the proposed rule that incorrectly stated that the capital costs for AFB were $1659 per pound of COD treated per day for al l scenarios costed. For the final rule, EPA has revised the AFB cost methodology and documentation. See the comment response to (C_AFB_CAP) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 82. C_AFB_CAP - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - capital costs Comme nt Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 46 EPA Does Not Derive Its Metric for Capital AFBR Costs Consistent With its Own Methodology

– Resulting in Further Underestimation of AFBR Capital Costs At the time the Agency was developing cost metrics for purposes of estimating AFBR Capital Costs, data were available for only two airports ALB and CAK

– the only two airports which had operated and/or planned to operate an AFBR treatment system. Even with this extremely limited universe of data, EPA makes a huge erro r in assessing costs and therefore in deriving its cost metric for AFBRs. In short, the Agency concludes the total installed capital cost of the ALB system is $8.1 million (2006$), when

– if calculated consistent with the Agency’s own170 description of its ca lculation methodology

– the correct value is $24.31 million (2006$). EPA’s description of its methodology for deriving the AFBR Capital Cost metric from the TDD is reproduced below181: Two airports have provided installed capital and O&M costs for AFBR bio logical treatment systems to treat ADF - contaminated stormwater (ERG, 2007g; ERG, 2007h). Table 11 - 10 lists the load and flow - normalized installed capital costs for the both AFBR treatment systems. The costs shown in Table 11 - 10 include costs for storage eq uipment such as tanks and ponds prior to anaerobic treatment. The storage equipment provides sufficient equalization to dampen flow and concentration changes indicative of deicing events. EPA clearly states that its metric for calculating AFBR capital cost s is intended to “include costs for storage equipment such as tanks and ponds” and, for ALB, costs were based on information contained in Document - 0806.182 The relevant portion of the later document is excerpted below: While it is not clear from the cited Document - 0806 precisely what elements of EPA included in the $8.1 million ($6.86 million in $2001),183 it is clear that EPA did not include, as the Agency asserts, all “costs for storage equipment such as tanks and ponds”/ “wastewater storage” costs. Doc ument

– 0806 clearly lists “Storage Lagoon [Design]/Construct[ion]” as an element costing $10.75 million in 1991.184 This is not an inconsequential oversight: the AFBR system EPA is purporting to cost cannot function at ALB without the storage lagoons cons tructed in 1991. EPA’s Engineering Site Visit Report makes this clear, noting that one of the lagoons is actually the “feeder” for the AFBR to ensure influent to the system is properly calibrated. Response: See the response to (C_AFB_CAP) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 41. EPA has incorporated additional data provided by commenters to develop revised cost estimates for AFB systems. See the comment response to (C_AFB_CAP) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 82. EPA disagrees that the e stimated AFB costs do not match the known available data. EPA has revised the methodology documentation to more clearly note that the installed cost of the AFB system (excluding equalization tanks or ponds) is approximately $8.1 million (in 2006$). Collect ion, piping, and storage costs need to be added to the AFB costs to determine the total cost of a complete collection and control system and EPA has included each of these costs in the final costing analysis. C_AFB_CAP - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 78 EPA’s values for COD load normalized cost do not accurately reflect costs In Section VI (A)(2)(b) we have already demonstrated that, in deriving its AFBR capital costs, EPA failed to include the cost elements it claimed to. Specifically, EPA failed to incl ude all storage costs incurred at ALB. As noted above, correction of this error, together with using the amount ALB actually borrowed to finance construction of additional elements of its AFBR system, would yield a COD Load Normalized Cost for estimating c apital costs for AFBRs that is much higher than the value used by EPA. Had it included all the costs it said it did, the value for estimating AFBR Capital Costs would be $3,218, not the $1,659 erroneously derived by the Agency. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 46. C_AFB_CAP - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 82 With respect to AFBR capital costs, EPA also used the AFBR Operating Days to calculate the average171 daily COD loading to the treatment system and estimated costs accordingly. On the surface, this makes sense: for a given airport COD load, the longer the treatment period, the lower the daily COD loading to the treatment system and the smaller the treatment system required to handle the daily load. However, this is a very simplistic perspective. The size of a treatment system is determined based on many airport specific variables. At a minimum these include the number of operations, method of s tormwater collection and the frequency, duration and intensity of deicing events. Depending on these site specific conditions, the system design engineer and the airport authority will make tradeoffs between increased system size and storage capacity. At a irports with frequent deicing events (resulting in a steady inflow to the collection system), the installation of a larger system can reduce storage costs. Alternatively, a smaller treatment system may require more storage, thereby increasing storage costs . The point is that the size of a treatment system required at any airport is based on many site - specific variables with the number of operations and deicing event frequency and intensity being critical to the sizing of a system. Response: EPA has revise d the cost methodology for AFB systems to incorporate additional data provided by commenters to address the fact that the cost per pound of COD removal capacity increases for smaller load removal systems. Details about the updated methodology are available in Section 10.2.2.2 of the TDD and the August 2010 memorandum Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for Anaerobic Fluid Bed Treatment of ADF Contaminated Stormwater. EPA acknowledges that the precise cost of an AFB system would be site - specific. However, EPA us ed the available data to develop a general estimate that could be applied to all airports. C_AFB_CAP - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 18 In its storage analysis, CDM estimated that on a desig n season basis, the conceptual Expanded Juliet Pad would generate about 19.1 million gallons of deicing runoff, with biological oxygen demand (“BOD”) concentrations ranging from zero to the extremely high concentration of 500,000 milligrams per liter (“mg/ L”).162 [FOOTNOTE: 162 See id. at p. 3.] GS&P determined that as a result, Boston - Logan would need an AFB system capable of treating approximately 33,000 pounds of BOD per day. According to GS&P, while an AFB system could be designed to treat such an extre mely high daily load rate, such a system would experience major operational problems.163 [FOOTNOTE: 163 See id. Specifically, AFB systems are designed to operate at a nearly constant daily BOD loading rate. Because deicing runoff concentrations can be high ly variable, any AFB system operated at an airport would have to adjust influent flow rates to achieve this necessary constant loading rate. The lower the concentration of ADF in influent, the higher the necessary flow rate. Conversely, the higher the conc entration of ADF in the influent, the lower the necessary flow rate to maintain a constant loading rate. Given this, treatment of the deicing runoff collected from Expanded Pad Juliet, with its very high ADF concentrations, would require very low flow rate s into any AFB system. See id.] Moreover, building such a system at Boston - Logan would cost about $54 million (not including such key components as storage facilities, and piping from these facilities to the treatment system) and would require approximatel y six acres of land at Boston Logan.164 [FOOTNOTE: 164 See id. at pp. 5 - 6.] Response: See the response to (C_AFB_CAP) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 41.172 C_AFB_CAP - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 63 The capital cost factor (1,659 $/lb COD/day) for the AFBR treatment system must be reassessed. The capital cost factor (1,659 $/lb COD/day) was estimated based on the AFBR treatment system capital cost at ALB in terms of 2006 dollars. As mentioned in our p revious comment the inflation calculation involves a major flaw. Therefore, the total capital cost of the AFBR system at ALB ($8.1 million) does not represent the true value in today’s dollars. In addition, it is unclear whether the AFBR treatment system c apital cost includes the wastewater storage tank and lagoons. According to the “Final Engineering Site Visit Report for Albany International Airport,” the storage units are an integral part of the treatment system since they “equalize the wastewater to pro vide a stable influent for subsequent onsite wastewater treatment.”142 Based on this information, the capital cost of the storage units should be part of the overall capital cost of the AFBR treatment system. Response: See the response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 46. C_AFB_CAP - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 64 In addition, the capital cost factor does not consider the sizing of the reactors. The method for estimating AFBR capital cost is only based on COD loading with no regard to the size of the reactors. For airports larger and smaller than the model airports, the sizing of the AFBRs becomes an important issue. The “COD Load - Normalized Capital Cost” estimated by EPA base d on the data from the two model airports is in units of $/lbs COD/day.143 Our earlier comments indicate that a standard cost factor is not appropriate, given the issues with simply scaling a system up or down to correspond to the COD loadings at a particu lar airport. However, if a standard cost factor were used, the COD loading for each model airport should be divided by the total combined volume of each AFBR system (i.e. 5,030 ft3 for CAK and 6,850 ft3 for ALB) thus yielding the AFBR capital cost factor i n terms of $/lb/day - ft3. This cost factor would provide a more realistic estimate of AFBR treatment system capital cost, taking into consideration the reactor volume. 138 The docket contains a spreadsheet documenting capital costs incurred by ALB from 1991 to 1997. However, this information in the spreadsheet is vague and does not provide capital costs specifically related to components of the AFBR system treatment system (i.e. cost of AFB reactors, piping, storage tanks, etc.). [FOOTNOTE: 139 http://data.b ls.gov/cgi - bin/cpicalc.pl, accessed January 21, 2010.] [FOOTNOTE: 140 http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/rates/inflation_calc.html, accessed January 21, 2010.] [FOOTNOTE: 141 http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm#Question_1, accessed on February 3, 2010.] Response : See the comment response to (C_AFB_CAP) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 82. C_AFB_CAP - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 65 The AFBR Cost Memorandum144 states that the AFBR install ed capital cost listed for each model airport “includes both wastewater storage and treatment equipment.” It is not clear whether this cost includes the cost of the entire season’s wastewater storage or just an equalization storage tank feeding into the AF BR173 treatment system. It is also unclear whether the capital cost of storage consists of constructing new facilities from scratch or just enhancing or extending existing storage facilities. The capital cost of the storm water storage should be treated separ ately from the AFBR treatment, since the capital cost of storm water infrastructure would vary from airport to airport depending on whether some storage infrastructure exists or the infrastructure needs to be built from scratch. For example, ALB only had t o build one new storage tank (2.5 million gallons) with the new AFBR treatment system since the majority of the needed storage capacity (8.5 million gallons)145 already existed. The cost incurred to ALB for constructing a 2.5 million gallon storage tank wo uld be nominal compared to constructing the entire storage capacity of 11 million gallons from scratch. Response: See the comment response to (C_AFB_CAP) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 46. EPA has also revised the storage methodology to ass ess ADF contaminated stormwater required for collection at a model airport (based on estimated ADF usage) and associated storage costs for that volume of stormwater. These costs represent storage "from scratch". See Section 10.2.2.2 of the TDD. C_AFB_CAP - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 67 The relationship between the capital cost and design COD loading is linear in nature because only two data points are available (i.e., two model airports).149 This fact signifies the inadequacy of the cost analysis of the AFBR system, since there is not enough data available to validate it. The true AFBR treatment system capital cost may vary significantly with design COD loadings based on the size of reactors and the locations of airports in the different parts of country due to differences in construction costs. As reflected in the Port Authority’s cost estimates for deicing pads, the cost of construction in New York and New Jersey is significantly higher than costs at airports in other parts of the United States. Response: EPA has incorporated additional data provided by commenters to develop revised cost estimates for AFB systems. Please see the EPA response to comment (C_AFB_CAP) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 , excerpt 82. C_AFB_CAP - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 111 ACI - NA through consultation with industry consultants experienced in AFB design has developed the cost Figure 5 below that shows a more appropriate general relationship between cost and COD load for the Primary Treatment Components associated with treatmen t systems designed to treat less than 7,000 pounds of COD per day. This graphic was prepared by considering the following and illustrates that EPA significantly underestimated the costs associated with small systems. • The range for a two - reactor AFB syste m based on the ALB design concept is 500 to 7,000 lbs/day COD removed. This range encompasses the three AFB systems that have been designed (ALB, CAK, and PDX) • AFB systems with capacities less than 500 lbs COD removed per day are feasible, but pilot test ing is required to establish design characteristics because of structural support considerations and maintaining the relationships between media type, fluidization velocity, flow distribution in the reactor, and reactor height established by the research i n the ALB system development. • AFB systems with capacities greater than 7,000 lbs COD removed per day are also feasible, but the design would required multiple unit processes (i.e., systems with 4, 6, 8 or more reactors) because of practical issues in con structing and transporting individual reactors larger than 16 feet in diameter. • The cost per pound of COD removal capacity increases rapidly174 for smaller load removal systems because a) economy of scale issues with the reactor and separator and b) the cos t of the support and building systems is relatively constant, varying minimally with COD load removed. [See submittal for Figure 5. Planning Level Opinion of Probable Capital Costs for Installation of AFB Systems Per Treatment Rates] Response: Please see the EPA response to comment (C_AFB_CAP) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, excerpt 82. EPA agrees with the commenter that the cost per pound of COD removal capacity increases for smaller load removal systems. EPA thanks this commenter for the provision of additi onal data. EPA has incorporated these data into the AFB capital cost calculation. Details about the updated methodology are available in Section10.2.2.2 of the TDD and the August 2010 memorandum Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for Anaerobic Fluid Bed Treat ment of ADF Contaminated Stormwater. C_AFB_O&M - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - O&M costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 20 Additionally, in estimating COD testing costs in this section, why was a five day work week applied to a 24/7 was tewater treatment process? As such, the analysis would be performed seven times per week. (Impacting your overall operational cost estimates). Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform collection or treatment requirement for spent ADF as part of the req uirements for existing sources. Therefore this comment is no longer applicable to the final rule requirements for existing sources. However, since proposal, EPA revised the O&M costs for AFB; these costs are now estimated based on a cost equation develope d from the O&M costs reported by Albany International Airport and Akron - Canton Regional Airport and the amount of ADF recovered at these airports. The cost equation is applied to the amount of ADF recovered at each airport that has costs calculated for an AFB treatment system. For more information, please see TDD Section 10.2.2. With respect to discharge monitoring, the permit authority will set the testing frequency for compliance related COD monitoring. For purposes of assessing compliance related COD tes ting costs for the final rule analysis, EPA has assumed seven days/week sampling during a deicing season as recommended by this commenter. EPA has concluded that the estimates are sufficient to determine national estimates for O&M associated with an AFB s ystem. C_AFB_O&M - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - O&M costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 80 From TDD page 12 - 9, is the transportation and disposal of the AFB solids included in the annual O& M costs? If so, what was the rate used per ton? Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform collection or treatment requirement for spent ADF as part of the requirements for existing sources; therefore this comment is no longer applicable to the final ru le requirements for existing sources.175 However, the O&M costs for AFB systems are derived from O&M cost data reported by Albany International Airport and Akron - Canton Regional Airport. The airports provided total O&M costs, without a breakdown of the specif ic components included in those costs. Therefore, the rate per ton of disposed AFB solids is included in the estimate but the specific costs are not known. C_AFB_O&M - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - O&M costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 79 Similar errors were also made in the analysis of operating costs for AFBR treatment systems. Specifically, EPA utilized operating data from ALB and the estimated operating costs for CAK. For both of these costs, EPA indicated that the operating costs included both wastewater storage and operating equipment annual costs. However, analysis of operating and maintenance costs submitted by CAK241 airport indicates the following: • O&M costs are ‘projected’ and are not based on actual costs. • O&M costs do n ot include wastewater storage annual costs associated with tank cleaning, inspection and general maintenance. • CAK O&M costs appear to be underestimated compared to ALB costs. For example, the CAK facility has a capacity of 65% of the ALB facility, thus, costs for sludge disposal should be approximately 65% of the ALB costs. CAK has estimated $5,000 for sludge disposal compared to an average of $16,900 for ALB.242 If annual costs are truly related to COD load, then sludge disposal costs of nearly $11,000 w ould be predicted. Similarly, CAK estimates $30,000 for utilities. In contrast, ALB spends $101,000 on average for utility costs. Again, based on COD loading, a utility cost of $65,000 would be expected. Based on the above analysis, the “projected” costs f or CAK are underestimates of actual costs and are not appropriate for cost estimation of operating costs for AFBR treatment systems. Further, the selection and use of the CAK projected operating costs fails to include estimated maintenance costs associated with AFBR influent storage tanks. As pointed out above, EPA also failed to include significant expenditures planned at ALB to replace/rehab the existing lagoon. Given that the source of influent water to the AFBR system is essentially stormwater, it will contain sand, grit and other debris. Tanks and lagoons must be periodically cleaned of this debris to maintain them in adequate operating conditions and protect downstream equipment. Thus, costs for tank and lagoon rehabilitation should be included in annu al maintenance costs. The use of projected annual costs for the CAK facility as well as the failure to include tank/lagoon rehabilitation costs for ALB results in an underestimate of annual AFBR costs. Projected annual costs for the CAK facility should be deleted and adjusted costs for the ALB facility, which includes certain rehabilitation of the system, should be utilized. At a minimum, annual costs for the AFBR system are underestimated by 26% and likely more. Response: EPA is not promulgating a unifor m collection or treatment requirement for spent ADF as part of the requirements for existing sources. Therefore this comment is no longer applicable with respect to existing sources. For new sources, we did a facility - wide BTE analysis that does not depe nd on detailed costs of AFB treatment. Nevertheless, EPA revised its estimation of the AFB treatment system O&M costs as described in the TDD, Section 10; see EPA response to comment (C_AFB_O&M) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, excerpt 20 for more information. For a discussion of the use of CAK’s O&M data, see the EPA response to comment (C_AFB_O&M) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1, excerpt 68. Storage costs are included separately from the costs for AFB treatment. See the EPA response to (C_AFB_O&M) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 00 38 - 1232.1, excerpt 66 for more information.176 C_AFB_O&M - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - O&M costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 81 AFBR Operating Days As pointed out above, because AFBR Operating Days is a denominator in the equation, the longer an AFBR system operates the lower the Capital and O&M costs. This cannot make sense with respect to O&M costs. As the duration of system operation increases, increased labor 243 TDD at 11 - 23. hours are incurred, the system experiences more wear and tear, system maintenance and repair increases, labor hours associated with system operation increases and system oversight/management increases. Thus, clearly, the cost of system operation increases with the duration of operation, not decreases as EPA has assumed. Review of the ALB operating data indicate, that with the exception of electrical costs, the highest cost line item is labor. Thus, with respect to O&M costs, the longer a system operates, the higher the labor costs. Response: EPA is not promulg ating a uniform collection requirement for spent ADF as part of the requirements for existing sources. Therefore this comment is no longer applicable with respect to existing sources. ADD: Our standard response that for new sources, we did a facility - wid e BTE analysis that does not depend on detailed costs of AFB treatment. See comment code C_AFB_BASIS EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 72. C_AFB_O&M - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - O&M costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 66 The AFBR Cost Memorandum146 states that the annual O&M costs for the AFBR system include both wastewater storage and treatment costs. However, the review of the O&M cost data provided by ALB147 and CAK148 reveals that it onl y includes O&M costs for the treatment system, and not for the storage system. None of the above cost documents specifically list the O&M cost associated with the wastewater storage. As stated above, it is unclear whether the wastewater storage means the s torage of an entire season’s deicing storm water or just an equalization tank associated with the AFBR treatment system. The O&M costs for wastewater storage can be substantial including activities such as tank inspections, tank cleaning, leak detection, p iping and components repair and replacement, and pump maintenance and repair. Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform collection requirement for spent ADF as part of the requirements for existing sources. Therefore this comment is no longer applicab le with respect to existing sources. Additionally, EPA conducted a facility - wide Barrier to Entry analysis that does not depend on detailed costs of AFB treatment. However, storage capital and O&M costs are estimated separately from the capital and O&M co sts for AFB treatment. Based on data reported in the airport questionnaire, EPA estimated storage tank O&M costs to be $0.27 per gallon of ADF applied. For information about storage O&M costs, please see TDD Section 10.2.2.177 C_AFB_O&M - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - O&M costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 68 The O&M cost factor for the AFBR treatment system also was estimated based on the data available from only two airports (ALB and CAK). According to an email from CAK,150 the O&M cost for their AFBR treatment system was an estimated value and does not represent the actual cost incurred during AFBR treatment system operation. This raises the question of credibility and quality of the O&M cost analysis when it is based on only one airport ’s actual operational data. Furthermore, the comparison between the annual O&M cost data from ALB and CAK, $510,000 versus $195,000, respectively, reveals that the O&M costs can vary substantially from operation to operation even though in this situation t he two model airports are similar in size (i.e., AFB reactor size) but vary in other parameters, such as influent flow rate, design loading, and concentration of the influent. The assumption of a linear relationship based on the designed COD loading cannot be confirmed because there are only two data points available. If the EPA’s numbers for ALB alone were used to calculate the O&M costs for the AFBR treatment system, the CAK O&M cost estimate ($195,000) would be significantly less than the expected costs. EPA has assumed that there is a linear relationship between the COD loading and O&M costs. Assuming this linear relationship exists, a simple interpolation of cost data from ALB ($510,000) and COD data from ALB and CAK (5,200 and 3,400 lb/day, respectivel y) reveals that the CAK O&M cost should be $333,461. This information is indicative of EPA’s flawed methodology in estimating the O&M costs. Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform collection requirement for spent ADF as part of the requirements for existing sources. Therefore this comment is no longer applicable with respect to existing sources. ADD: Our standard response that for new sources, we did a facility - wide BTE analysis that does not depend on detailed costs of AFB treatment. However, EPA normalized the AFB O&M costs to the amount of recovered ADF, not to the COD load treated or to the capacity of the system. EPA acknowledges that the O&M costs for CAK’s AFB treatment were projected and not actual. However, CAK’s O&M costs were based on an engineering estimate and, when normalized, the costs are similar to ALB’s reported O&M costs. Therefore, EPA chose to retain these data. The projected O&M costs for CAK are $5.39 per gallon of ADF recovered and the O&M costs for ALB are $4.40 per gallon o f ADF recovered. The average of these values ($4.90 per gallon of ADF recovered) is used to estimate O&M for other airports, based on the amount of recovered ADF. C_AFB_O&M - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - O&M costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 69 A review of ALB’s and CAK’s O&M cost data reveals that the labor cost is one of the most significant portions of the total annual O&M costs: approximately 32 percent and 50 percent for ALB and CAK, respectively.151 Labor cost can vary substanti ally from region to region based on the cost of living. The cost of living should be factored in developing the annual O&M cost factor for the AFBR system. To illustrate this point, a comparison was made among Albany, N.Y., Akron, OH, and New York City, N. Y., using a cost of living calculator.152 The results reveal that New York City is 57 percent more expensive than Albany and 109 percent more expensive than Akron. For the sake of comparison, a $50,000 annual salary in Akron should be increased to $104,572 per year in New York. In addition, larger AFBR treatment plants with multiple reactors would require several full - time operating staff. All of these factors should be made part of the annual O&M cost factor for the AFBR system to reflect the real world178 o perating conditions. [FOOTNOTE: 152 http://www.bestplaces.net/COL/default.aspx, accessed January 21, 2010.] Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform collection requirement for spent ADF as part of the requirements for existing sources. Therefore this comment is no longer applicable with respect to existing sources. For new sources, EPA did a facility - wide BTE analysis that does not depend on detailed costs of AFB treatment. However EPA used available cost and system data to estimate costs for the industry as a whole. Costs may be higher at some airports and lower at others. However, in order to develop nationally representative costs for the entire industry, EPA relied on available data to develop cost equations that could be applied to each airpor t. In this way, EPA developed costs for each airport that take into account different situations at different airports. C_AFB_O&M - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - O&M costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 76 Minimum Concentration Analysis As discussed above, AFB treatment systems are designed to operate at a nearly constant COD loading rate, resulting in the need to adjust influent flow rates as influent COD concentrations change. As COD concentrations decrease, influent flow rates must be increased to maintain the COD loading. For most of the range of COD concentrations that airports might experience, this is not an issue as sufficient methane is generated by the bioreactor to heat the influent water to achieve the necessary temperature for treatment. As COD concentrations approach 2,000 mg/L COD or less, however, amount of methane produced by the system is not sufficient to heat the water. Natural gas or propane purchased by the airport must be used to supplement the methane supply from the reactor when COD concentrations go below 2,000 mg/L. The costs of natural gas or propane to supplement the methane supply in an AFB system was not included in EPA’s description of the BAT and was also not included in the economic analysis. The quantity an d cost of purchased natural gas or propane when COD concentrations are less than 2,000 mg/L varies from site to site. In general, the costs for natural gas purchase are more significant for airports that have very large quantities of glycol use (which typi cally results in large quantities of water being impacted) or airports that have very large volumes of water to process because their deicer collection systems cover large areas. Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform collection requirement for spent ADF as part of the requirements for existing sources. Therefore this comment is no longer applicable with respect to existing sources. ADD: Our standard response that for new sources, we did a facility - wide BTE analysis that does not depend on detailed costs of AFB treatment. However, we note that EPA’s calculated costs provide a reasonable estimate of costs on an industry - wide basis. See Comment Code C_AFB_O&M - Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment - O&M costs, response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 123 2.1

– 69. C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized deicing pad - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1 - 9 The EPA gravely underestimates the capital and operational costs of its proposals. In several erroneous calculations, the EPA underestimates the capital costs for central deicing pads by more than 50% by using seasonal departure numbers instead of annual departures as explained in the analysis by ATA. EPA makes179 similar mistakes in the calculations for annual O&M costs. Furthermore, EPA largely igno res the significant costs of storage of wastewater which is an important element in its proposals and which will prove particularly expensive for capacity constrained airports. Most importantly, the EPA ignores costs incurred at individual airports to deal with specific local conditions such as the lack of available land, removal / modification of existing buildings, existing runways and taxi - tracks. Changing existing infrastructure could result in billions of additional costs to airports and airlines that are currently not considered in the EPA analysis. For example, Massport estimates that full compliance with the NPRM would cost over $1.6 billion at Boston Logan Airport (BOS). According to Massport, additional costs to BOS are due to the need for BOS to d evelop new airport land to build new deicing pads and to a host of other airport - specific constraints and requirements. The NPRM estimates that the total cost of compliance by all of the approximately 70 airports affected is $714 million. However, complian ce by BOS alone will cost over $1.6 billion, more than twice the EPA estimate. Clearly, the EPA analysis does not accurately reflect the costs this NPRM would impose on an industry, which is starved for capital. Besides the capital and O&M costs to airport s, which eventually will have to be paid by the airlines and passengers, a reasonable analysis of the additional costs of delay and the operational impact on airlines is not included in the proposed rule. Response: After considering the comments and reviewing the information in its record, EPA is not promulgating a uniform collection or treatment requirement for existing facilities. Therefore the commenter’s concerns about the cost associated with installing centralized deicing pads at existing airpor ts are no longer applicable to the final rule with respect to existing sources. Additionally EPA conducted a facility - wide BTE analysis that does not depend on detailed costs of CDPs. In addition, with respect to comments on the availability of land for C DPs, EPA determined that new airports will have sufficient land to construct CDPs and to locate them so as to allow for efficient ground traffic flows. See section V.C.3 of the final rule preamble. C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized deicing pad - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1219.1 - 1 Analysis of the EPA’s centralized de - icing pad solution, alone, reveals the flaw in the national approach. This NRPM would require all airports subjected to the 60% collection to utilize central de - icing pads d esigned to capture spent ADF. This requirement is void of an analysis as to whether the individually affected airports have land available to construct these pads and whether that land is in a location that would allow for efficient ground traffic flows. Response: See the EPA response to comment (C_CDP_BASIS) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized deicing pad - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 45 EPA Does Not Derive Its Metric for CDP Capital Co sts Consistent With Its Own Methodology EPA estimates CDP Capital Costs using the $314.56 per annual departure metric discussed above. EPA derives this metric for using data from three airports: CAK, PIT and MSP.174 We describe many problems with EPA’s sel ection of these data and rejection of other data in Section VI (C)(3)(a), below. Here we discuss the fact that EPA did not derive this metric consistent with the methodology that it describes. This metric180 is intended to allow EPA to estimate the cost of de ploying CDPs at all airports. Importantly, EPA has affirmed that the 60% ADF collection standard is based on its estimate of the performance of CDPs, the Tier One model BAT collection technology, and Tier One airports can achieve compliance with the propos ed BAT by running 100% of deicing operations through CDPs; EPA also has confirmed that its cost model assumes that Tier One airports will deploy CDPs to service 100% of deicing operations. 175 EPA’s derivation of the $314.56/ annual operation metric is not consistent with this affirmed parameter. The Agency uses MSP as one of the airports from which it derives its metric for estimating pad costs, but notes in its own report that during its site visit “[a]irport staff stated that 70% of all deicing fluid is applied on the airport’s four deicing pads. The remaining 30% of deicing operations are done in the plug and pump area or the cover and sweep areas.” 176 Using the departure level attributed to MSP (246,286177), the number of departures serviced at deicing pads can be calculated: 70% of 246,286 = 172,400. Dividing the costs attributed to these pads by the Agency ($79,300,000) by this number of departures produces a per - departure cost of deicing pads at MSP of $460/departure, not the $322 calculated by the A gency. The Agency also uses PIT as one of the airports from which it derives this metric. Based on cost data on three CDPs at PIT (pads Charlie, Echo and Sierra), EPA concludes the per annual departure cost of CDPs at PIT is $280. However, two other CDPs

– the “FBO Pad” and the “FedEx Pad”

– also are commonly used at PIT; three others also play a role in ADF collection at the airport. Analysis of ADF collection data from PIT reveals that the Charlie, Echo, & Sierra pads (Pads C, E & S) that form the basis o f EPA’s $280/annual departure account for just 65% of ADF collected at the airport. While not perfect, scaling up $280 as if Pads C, E & S represented 100% of collected ADF178 (by solving for “x” in the following equation: $280/65% = x/100%) yields a value of $431/annual departures at PIT.179 Using the $460 figure for MSP and the $431 figure for PIT as bases for deriving the per - annual departure cost metric, the result is $411/departure (i.e., the average of the value calculated for CAK ($342), PIT ($431) a nd MSP ($460)).180 Thus, when the per - annual departure metric is derived consistent with EPA’s asserted methodology, it is 31% higher than the $314.56 metric that EPA used in its cost calculations. Using the metric derived consistent with EPA’s asserted me thodology and properly applying EPA’s cost formula (to all departures rather than only deicing season departures) pad capital costs results in the following: When annualized (using the airport - specific ratios for capital and annualized capital costs) the c osts for each airport are as follows: [See tables: CDP capital costs properly applying metric and annualized cost, pg.69] Response: See the EPA response to comment (C_CDP_BASIS) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized dei cing pad - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 69 Metrics for CDP Capital, CDP O&M and Tank Costs Are Arbitrary insofar as They Are Based on Annual Departures Both EPA’s metrics for estimating capital costs and O&M costs for CDPs are per - annual departure metrics. Adopting a “cost per - annual departure” metric for estimating costs is arbitrary in that: • Departures at airports fluctuate with market forces. Presently, for example, departures are far below both recent levels and levels th at had been expected. If derived today, because the annual - departure denominator is much lower, the metrics would thus be higher and, in turn, the projected costs would be higher. • Pads are sized within design constraints to accommodate peak - hour departur es, not annual departures generally. • Annual departures are not relevant to costing infrastructure designed to serve a much smaller subset of operations, i.e., departures in winter conditions requiring deicing. • EPA’s own analysis indicates that the supp osed “relationship” between total annual departures and deicing pad costs does not exist. As described in more detail below, in deriving the Pad Capital Cost metric the Agency threw out CLE data without explanation, but included data from CAK. Thus, to der ive this cost metric,181 EPA relied on data from an airport it decided not to cover under the Proposed Rule and exclude data from an airport it decided to include in the proposed rule. Response: In response to the concern about deicing pad costs, see the EP A response to comment (C_CDP_BASIS) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9. In response to concerns about tank costs, see comment code C_STORAGE response to comment EPA HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 71. C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized deicing pa d - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 73 EPA’s CDP Capital Cost Metric is a Per - Departure Metric, But CDP Costs Are NOT Determined by Annual Departure Levels The Record establishes that the cost of CDPs is not closely related to de parture levels (either annually or during deicing season). The FAA clearly advises that the total capacity of deicing facilities is determined with respect to the airports’ peak hour capacity during deicing conditions. 225 In fact, EPA seems to be drawing on this in requiring that “[d]eicing facilities shall be sized to accommodate the airport’s peak hourly departure rate” as one of the technical specifications that must be met to be deemed in compliance with the 60% collection requirement.226 Yet, data sho w that annual departure levels and peak hour levels at the airports EPA used to derive its cost metric are not related: [See table: Annual and Peak Hour Departures, Pg. 92] FAA also advises the number of pads required is generally a function of a number of variables, including “variations in meteorological conditions” and “type of aircraft receiving treatment,” but not annual departure levels.227 Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized deicing pad - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 74 The Metric for CDP Capital Costs Is Based on Arbitrarily - Selected Cost Data In the TDD, EPA explains that, based on data from three airports (unidentified in the TDD), EPA derived a “normalized” CDP Capital Cost of $314.56 per departure, but in its supporting memorandum (Document - 0845), EPA used four airports (CAK, PIT, MSP and CLE) to derive the normalized figure. Using the four airports, EPA there concluded the CDP Ca pital Cost per departure is $366.50. EPA does not explain its decision to exclude CLE costs from its calculation of the metric for estimating CDP Capital Costs, but it is striking that it chose to ignore the data indicating the highest value. More to the p oint is that EPA decided to retain the data from CAK, even though EPA ultimately determined to “descope” that airport, that is, exclude it from coverage. Thus, in deriving its cost metric for CDP Capital Costs, EPA has decided to include information from a n airport it has excluded from coverage the rule, but to exclude information from an airport it has decided to include in the rule. In other words, data from an airport not covered by the rule is deemed relevant to deriving costs for airports subject to th e rule, while data from an airport that is covered under the rule is deemed irrelevant. EPA does not explain why an airport that is not covered by the rule is a better indicator of costs than an airport that is covered by the rule. Still more curiously, EP A uses a per - departure storage volume metric as a component of the formula used to calculate tank costs and explains that in deriving that metric is it did not include DIA and CAK in the “gallons - per - departure” because they “appeared to be outliers.”228 I ndeed, the contrast between the inclusion of CAK data and the exclusion of CLE data becomes even more stark when the Record is closely examined. The CAK data182 that EPA relied upon can be found in Document - 0804, an email from CAK to EPA’s consultant Eastern Research Group (“ERG”) dated May 3, 2007.229 That email reads (emphasis added): Attached please find the cost breakout you requested. Keep in mind that some of these numbers are estimates, especially on the operating cost side. We don’t anticipate plant s tart up until June. If you need further information feel free to contact me. In contrast to the “estimates” provided by CAK, CLE confirmed the costs of its CDPs in a telephone conversation with EPA officials.230 Moreover, EPA relied on the very same inform ation it had rejected for purposes of deriving the CDP Capital Cost metric when attempting to ascertain the relationship between CDP costs and runway costs.231 There simply is no rational explanation as to why EPA would reject the CLE data it had used in o ther analyses and confirmed with CLE officials, yet retain information from CAK that CAK officials had warned was only an estimate. There certainly is no explanation in the Record. Response: In response to the concern about deicing pad costs, see the EPA response to comment (C_CDP_BASIS EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9. In response to concerns about the basis for developing tank costs, see comment code C_STORAGE response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 71. EPA has inclu ded storage tank costs from DIA and CAK in the estimate of storage tank costs; no storage tank costs were provided by CLE. C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized deicing pad - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 75 The Metric for CDP Capital Cost s Is Based on Inconsistent and Incomplete Cost Data The data from the three airports upon which EPA relies (CAK, PIT and MSP) to derive its CDP Capital Cost metric is incomplete and inconsistent. As noted above, the data from CAK largely consists of “estim ates.” The data from PIT also is incomplete and does not reflect costs in 2006 dollars. EPA reports that the “[t]otal installed costs for Pittsburgh’s three deicing pads is $35 million . . . .”232 EPA cites its USEPA Engineering Site Visit Report for Pitts burgh International Airport (August 2006) as the source of the $35 million figure for PIT. The final version of this report, dated November 2006, is Document - 0509 . In that report EPA notes that: At PIT, aircraft deicing/anti - icing is performed on dedicat ed deicing pads... PIT has five deicing pads for commercial and air cargo aircraft deicing. 233 These pads are already active and described as such in this document. EPA also reports: During the site visit, airport personnel provided the following estimate s of costs associated with their deicing/anti - icing operations: • Design and installation of the deicing pads C and E: $10,000,000 . . . • Design and installation of the deicing pad S: $25,000,000234 TDD (at 11 - 17). The TDD lists “Airport 1” as having 14,9 11 annual departures and $5.1 million “total installed cost for all deicing pads,” the same figures attributed to CAK in Document - 0845, Table 1. 230 Document - 0820. 231 Document - 0831, Table 1. 232 Document - 0845 at 1 - 2 (footnotes omitted). 233 Document - 0509 at 4. EPA apparently concluded that these costs are 2006$ because they are reported in a document dated 2006. However, the report also makes clear “EPA . . . conducted [the] site visit . . . on February 10, 2005.”235 Thus, it was impossible for PIT of ficials to report costs in 2006$ because the visit was conducted in 2005. Moreover, EPA’s consultant communicated directly with PIT regarding costs of its deicing pads and, in an email dated December 6, 2007 (Document - 0813), PIT clearly identified costs a ssociated with Pad S to be in 2001$. An accompanying document detailing costs (Document - 0817 ), placed the total value of the contract at $22.1 million; the email stated that this did not include either Design Costs or Construction Management Costs, both of which were estimated to be about $3.3 million (“@ 15%”). Thus, the total costs for “Pad S” as reported to EPA in response to its specific requests, was at least $26.6 million in 2001$. EPA arbitrarily ignores this information when deriving its cost metr ic for CDP Capital Costs. In addition, EPA does not include the costs associated183 with the other two deicing pads in operation at PIT. These are the “FedEx/Cargo” facility and the “FBO” facility. According to the 2006 - 2007 Deicing Action Plan Update

– Pitts burgh International Airport prepared by CDM 236 these sites accounted for the following percentages of the PG collected at PIT during the four deicing seasons analyzed as follows: PG Collected at PIT during the four seasons analyzed as follows. [SEE TABLE: PG COLLECTED AT PIT. pg 95] At a minimum, the FBO and FedEx/Cargo pads excluded from the analysis

– which together typically account for about 20% of the deicing fluid collected

– need to be taken into account in assessing costs at PIT. From another persp ective, the three pads EPA does take into account when estimating costs at PIT account for approximately 65% of the collection of PG collected. (See chart below). Concluding that 100% of the cost of installing pads at PIT is attributable to three pads that together account for just 65% of the fluid collected at the airport is clearly incorrect. In addition, the CDM report indicates both that three other pads play a role in ADF collection at the airport (“Yankee North,” “Yankee South,” and “N - South), as do G RVs and a culvert associated with Pad C. PG Collected at PIT [SEE TABLE PG COLLECTED AT PIT, pg 96] With respect to MSP as noted above, the MSP data

– as used by EPA

– is not an appropriate basis for establishing the cost of deicing pads. EPA derives the p er - annual departure metric relying, in part, on data from MSP. If one were to accept the “per - annual departure” metric, the MSP data needs to be adjusted to reflect that pads serve just 70% of operations at MSP. In addition, the data from these airports is not consistent as to what is included and what is not. While the PIT data did not include construction management or design costs, the MSP data did,237 while the CAK data apparently only included raw capital costs.238 Response: See the EPA response to c omment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized deicing pad - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 76 The Metric for CDP Capital Costs Is Arbitrary Because It Does Not (and Cannot) Reflect Airport Speci fic Design Elements It is impossible to estimate reasonably the cost of a CDP at a particular airport without detailed site specific information. As illustrated above, the cost of a CDP cannot be reliably related to aircraft departures. Just as importantly , the peak hourly departure rate and fleet mix are critical design parameters in the design

– and so, the costs

– of CDPs. For example, at PIT the cost associated with the construction of pads C and E which have the capability of deicing 6 aircraft at a ti me is $10,000,000. In contrast, the cost associated with Pad S is $25,000,000 which has the capability of deicing 3 aircraft at a time. The difference is attributed, in part, to the size of the aircraft. Specifically, Pad S is sized to accommodate 3 wide - b ody aircraft. Clearly it is not a “different” annual departure level at PIT that determines the cost of these pads. The cost of deicing pad construction is also a function of existing infrastructure. Analysis of pad construction costs at MSP indicates that deicing pad construction costs range from $7 per square foot up to $58 per square foot. Similarly, the cost of a pad at CLE was approximately $130 per square foot compared to approximately $22 per square foot for Pad E at PIT. EPA’s simplification of the method to estimate cost for a CDP by relating cost to the number of annual departures fails to recognize critical factors in the design of safe and operationally acceptable deicing pads at specific locations to meet specific objectives. This failure result s in the significant underestimation of construction costs due to differences in fleet mix and site - specific construction issues. Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9.184 C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized deicing pad - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 21 The cost estimates upon which EPA based its Proposed Rule are fundamentally flawed, particularly as applied to Boston - Logan. First, they were based on extremely limited and unrepresentativ e data. For example: • deicing pad costs were based on information from three airports;172 • storage tank costs were based on information from three airports;173 • storage tank volumes were based on information from three airports (only one of which also p rovided tank cost data);174 • AFB costs were based on information from two airports;175 and • piping costs were not based on information from any airports.176 EPA then used rudimentary and inaccurate conversion factors to apply these costs to other airport s covered by the Proposed Rule. For example, deicing pad costs were normalized to deicing season aircraft departures.177 However, deicing pad size and location is in fact determined by deicing season peak hour departures and fleet mix, as detailed in the C H2M HILL Deicing Pad Report as well as weather patterns and runway usage.178 [FOOTNOTE: 178 See CH2M Hill Deicing Pad Report at pp. 3 - 6, 7.] Further, deicing pads of similar size in different locations can have very different costs of construction, due to factors such as the suitability of the existing base material.179 [FOOTNOTE: 179 See id.at 13 - 14.] Second, storage tank costs were normalized to tank volume, again ignoring site - specific factors such as space constraints.180 Storage tank volume was normali zed to annual aircraft departures.181 However, the volume of storage required is related to deicing season departures, as well as the magnitude of deicing events, the amount of precipitation, and the rate at which flow and load can be discharged to treatme nt facilities.182 [FOOTNOTE: 182 See generally CDM Report. See also ERG, Estimated Capital and Operating Costs for Storage Tanks, EPAHQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 0853, at 1 (noting that tank capacity is based in part on flow and load).] Third, AFB costs were normalized to COD load;183 this calculation omits the other key variable, which is flow. 184 [FOOTNOTE: 184 See generally GS&P Report.] Finally, piping costs were assumed to be the same for all airports, based on an arbitrary assumption that each airport would requi re 1,000 linear feet of piping.185 No information is provided to support this assumption.186 [FOOTNOTE: 186 Because EPA’s underlying economic analyses are fundamentally flawed and lacks key considerations directly relevant to airport operations and deicing , it should reassess the economic costs and benefits before proceeding with this rulemaking.] EPA appears to have made a number of significant errors in its calculations with respect to its Boston - Logan - specific estimates. For example, the Technical Develo pment Document states that EPA normalized deicing pad costs to deicing season takeoffs, then translated the costs to other airports using deicing season takeoffs at those airports.187 However, the numbers EPA used to normalize costs are for annual departur es, not deicing season departures.188 Thus, extrapolating the normalized costs by multiplying them by deicing season departures at other airports (typically less than half of annual departures) results in a gross underestimate (see Table B). In addition, E PA’s calculations for the capital costs of AFB treatment are significantly flawed; the numbers presented for Boston - Logan are not the results obtained using EPA’s stated equation (see Table B and Exhibit 9). Finally, in its calculation of storage tank cost s, EPA’s Cost Annualization Model Spreadsheet shows scaling factors of 0.33 and 0.66 with no explanation.189 The 0.33 scaling factor appears to have been applied to Boston - Logan (see Table B and Exhibit 9). After EPA’s cost estimates for Boston - Logan are r evised to account for these errors, EPA’s total cost estimate jumps from $73 million to $157 million. These results are shown in the third column of Table B below. Yet, even the higher, corrected EPA estimate of $157 million grossly underestimates Massport ’s actual compliance costs, as summarized below. Response: See the response to comment (C_CDP_BASIS) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9. However, in the final technical analysis, EPA has made revisions to many of the equations used to estimate industry costs, see TDD Section 10.2.2.2 for detailed infor mation about the updated cost equations. EPA used available cost and system data to estimate costs for the industry. EPA acknowledges185 that costs may be higher at some airports and lower at others. However, in order to estimate costs for the entire industr y, EPA relied on available data to develop cost equations that could be applied to each model airport. In response to concerns about tank costs, EPA has normalized tank storage volume requirements to annual ADF usage instead of annual departures. See TDD Section 10.2.2.2 and comment code C_STORAGE response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 71. EPA has also revised the cost methodology for AFB systems to incorporate additional data provided by commenters that relates cost to COD load. COD load is a key parameter for the design of AFB systems and in consultation with design professionals who are involved with the construction of these facilities, EPA decided to retain this factor for use in scaling costs. Details about the updated AFB methodology are available in TDD Section 10.2.2.2 and comment code C_AFB_CAP response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 82. In addition, EPA has revised the amount of piping estimated for each airport. Although the exact amount of pipi ng required at each airport will be specific to the conditions at that airport, EPA used available data and commenter information to develop a general estimate that could be applied to all airports. See TDD Section 10.2.2.2 for more details. In the final t echnical analysis, EPA has also updated the costs calculated for Boston Logan. For Boston Logan’s AFB costs, as requested by the commenter, EPA has applied the updated AFB cost equation and used the updated results in the final technical analysis. C_CDP_B ASIS - Centralized deicing pad - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 27 “Model airport” approach to determining pad size was not appropriate. The ERG memorandum uses information on the number and size of deicing pads at three other l arge airports (Denver International Airport, Pittsburgh International Airport, and Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County International Airport) (“DEN, PIT, DTW”) to develop potential deicing pad requirements for JFK, LGA, and DCA. This approach seems to be bas ed on the incorrect assumption that the characteristics of the deicing pads at one airport can directly translate into the requirements for deicing pads at another. We disagree. As indicated by our prior comments, the requirements for a centralized deicing pad are highly site - and operation specific. The number, locations, and sizes of the deicing pads at DEN, PIT, and DTW are based on the weather patterns, runway use patterns, runway configuration, taxiway access, peak - hour operations, fleet mix, site cond itions, and a host of other factors specific to those airports. The potential problems with ERG’s approach are reflected in part by the overly wide range of “pad area per departure” results (more than twice as high for DEN as for DTW) and the “number of pa ds per runway” (which is almost 80 percent higher for PIT than for DEN and DTW).44 Response: In response to concerns about deicing pad costs, see the EPA response to comment code C_CDP_BASIS, EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9 C_CDP_BASIS - Ce ntralized deicing pad - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 29 Annual operations are not appropriate basis for pad size. As stated in the ERG memo, “To determine the appropriate size of each aircraft deicing pad, ERG developed a rela tionship between deicing pad area (square feet) and the annual number of airport departures.”51 52 ERG explains the reasoning for this approach: “ERG selected this relationship based on the assumption that more annual departures is an indication that large r aircraft...are being used at an airport, and that larger aircraft would require larger186 deicing pads.” We have several concerns about the use of this flawed approach. First, the number of annual (or seasonal) departures is not necessarily tied to the size o f aircraft using the airport. A review of JFK, LGA, and EWR departure data for 2008 indicates the following fleet mixes, shown by ADG. Two percentage breakdowns are shown, one including all aircraft, and the other, excluding aircraft in ADG I and II (which would be less likely to fly during winter storm conditions). [S ee table of P ort A uthority 2008 departure ] The 2008 data indicate: • Large aircraft (the Airbus 330 and 340, the Boeing 747 and 767, and others) are a substantial proportion of the fleet mix s erving JFK. A small number of the largest aircraft (Aircraft Design Group VI, including the Airbus 380) operate at JFK; • Medium - sized aircraft (the Airbus 319, the Boeing 737, and others) are a substantial proportion of the fleet mix serving LGA. A small number of larger aircraft (Aircraft Design Group V, including the Airbus 300 and Boeing 767) operate at LGA; and • A mix of large and medium - sized aircraft serve EWR. (Although EWR is not included in the ERG analysis, data are shown here for completeness.) As noted in the Proposed Rule,53 deicing pads would have to be sized to accommodate the largest aircraft serving the airport. Based on this fact and the 2008 aircraft mix numbers shown above (as well as the peak - hour data presented elsewhere in these comm ents), the deicing pads at JFK should be relatively larger than those at LGA. But because the ERG memorandum uses only the number of departures as the basis for deicing pad size, the memo concludes that LGA would have to provide 1.8 million square feet for deicing pads and JFK would have to provide 1.5 million square feet. The Port Authority strongly maintains that EPA cannot use analyses of this quality and limited scope to promulgate national regulations. In addition, airports have no control over the equ ipage decisions made by airlines. The aircraft fleet mixes of distinct airlines are not fixed and can vary widely over time. The Proposed Rule would put an airport into a situation where it would need to design a compliant collection pad, only to see airli nes subsequently change their fleet mix, rendering the pad(s) inadequate or over - built. Second, the key number to use in determining deicing pad size is not annual or “deicing season” departures, but peak - hour departures. There is not necessarily a linear relationship between the number of annual departures and the number of peak hour departures at our airports. A review of relevant information on peak - hour activity at JFK, LGA, and EWR indicates the following: • The FAA currently limits air carrier arrival s and departures (combined) at JFK to 81 an hour from 6 a.m. through 10:59 p.m.54 Although this limit would translate to about 40 departures per hour, there are typically “banks” (or “pushes”) of arrivals and departures, with more arrivals than departures during a given hour and vice versa. A review of hourly departure data indicates that there can be as many as about 60 departures in the peak hour.55 • A review of JFK hourly departure data for December 2008, a month during which there was a variety of weat her conditions, indicates that there can be as many as about 56 departures per hour during normal weather conditions, and about 10 to 24 departures per hour during a winter storm.56 These data are generally consistent with anecdotal information from winter operations experts at JFK. One expert indicates that there are 14 to 16 hourly departures on average during winter storm conditions; another indicates that there are a maximum of 24 to 28 hourly departures during winter conditions.57 • The FAA currently l imits air carrier arrivals and departures (combined) at LGA to 71 an hour from 6 a.m. through 9:59 p.m.58 A review of hourly departure data indicates that there can be as many as about 44 departures in the peak hour.59 • A review of LGA hourly departure da ta for December 2008 indicates that there can be as many as about 40 departures per hour during normal weather conditions, and about 10 to 29 departures per hour during a winter storm.60 These data are generally consistent with anecdotal information from w inter operations experts at LGA. One expert indicates that there are 16 to 18 hourly departures on average during winter storm conditions.61 • The FAA currently limits air carrier arrivals and departures (combined) at EWR to 81 an hour from 6 a.m. through 10:59 p.m.62 A review of hourly departure data indicates that there can be as many as about 47 departures in the peak hour.63 • A review of EWR hourly departure data for December 2008 indicates that there can be as many as about 45 departures per hour duri ng normal weather conditions, and about 9 to 24 departures per hour during a winter storm.64 These data are generally consistent with limited data provided by winter operations experts at EWR. An ATCT review indicates that there are 12 to 21 hourly departu res on average during winter storm conditions.65 These wide ranges of numbers are given to show how (1) winter throughput can vary dramatically, depending on the conditions, and (2) the number of187 peak - hour winter departures can be similar to peak - hour depa rtures during the summer months. These characteristics of hourly operations have major implications for the feasibility and cost of centralized deicing pads. The Port Authority believes that EPA’s failure to appropriately consider and address hourly depart ure data is a fundamental error.66 Aircraft mix and peak hour departures are just two of the factors that should be, but have not been, considered in determining pad size; a number of other airport physical and operating characteristics should also be, but have not been, considered. Although we admit that considering all of those factors is a significant undertaking and challenge for EPA, the serious nature of this rulemaking and impacts on operations and flight safety demand that EPA do whatever it must to ensure its regulations are based on appropriate grounds. To that end, the Port Authority believes that the use of a straight pad - area - per - departure factor is not valid and does not withstand reasonable scrutiny.67 [FOOTNOTE:54 Federal Register Volume 74, No. 193, pp. 51650 ff, Federal Aviation Administration, Operating Limitations at John F. Kennedy International Airport, October 7, 2009.] [FOOTNOTE: 67 Please note that these comments are based on one year’s worth of data for fleet mix and peak - hour depart ures. The comments are intended to illustrate the problems with the use of annual departure data, and are valid for that purpose. We do not mean to claim, however, that the size of deicing pads should be based on one year’s worth of fleet mix and peak - hour departure data. These characteristics of airport operations change over time, and a longer period should be used for any analysis of aircraft activity data. Hence, while one year of data may serve to demonstrate the point we are making, EPA would be requi red to conduct a much more comprehensive analysis to support a future Deicing ELG. Response: See the EPA response to comment (C_CDP_BASIS) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized deicing pad - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 30 Number of runways is not appropriate surrogate for number of pads. As stated in the ERG memo, “To determine the number of aircraft deicing pads needed at an airport, ERG developed a relationship between the number of runwa ys at an airport and the number of deicing pads used at that airport...ERG determined that approximately one aircraft deicing pad is required for each airport runway.”68 (The ratio used in Tables 1 and 2 of the ERG memo is 0.86.) The actual number of pads th at would be required to comply with the Proposed Rule is related to the number of runways only in the sense that aircraft using a particular runway need to be able to access a pad close enough to the takeoff end of the runway to allow taxiing within the re levant FAA - mandated holdover times. In this sense, each runway should be counted as two runways, because each runway end has the potential to be used for an aircraft departure. For example, JFK has four runways (as noted in the ERG memo) but has eight run way ends that could theoretically be used for aircraft departures when deicing is performed. The runway end used for departure is under the purview of the FAA and is based on wind direction and safety (among other factors). In reality, the number of deicin g pads needed at an airport is related to a number of factors in addition to the number of runway ends. Those factors include (among others) runway use patterns during the times deicing is performed, taxiway access to pad locations and to the ends of the r unways, the locations of the runway ends relative to the passenger terminals and other aircraft facilities, runway configuration (including the locations of the runway ends relative to each other), and the ability of a particular location to accommodate al l of the aircraft deicing required during the peak hour. To simply posit that “Denver has six runways and four pads, and LaGuardia has two runways, so it should have two pads,” is not an adequate basis of reasoning for determining deicing pad requirements at the Port Authority airports. The problems with this approach are reflected in the wide difference in the ratios shown in Table 1 of the ERG memo, where PIT has 1.25 deicing pads per runway but DEN and DTW have only 0.7 pads per runway. Use of simple div ision to determine area is not appropriate. As stated in188 the ERG memo, “The size of the individual aircraft deicing pads at each airport was determined by dividing the total deicing pad area by the number of deicing pads needed.”69 It is not clear whether this approach assumes that multiple pads would be used simultaneously, or whether each pad would be sized to accommodate all of the departures for a particular flow. (That assumption would depend on how the pads are used at the model airports.) Taxiway con straints and operational flows may dictate that all departures in a particular flow use a single pad associated with a distinct runway departure end. As stated throughout these comments, EPA must develop and apply a more sophisticated approach to understan ding and regulating complex airport operations associated with aircraft deicing. A simple division - based tool, in this example, will not result in a reasonable outcome. Response: See the EPA response to comment (C_CDP_BASIS) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, C omment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized deicing pad - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 31 AC wording about deicing pads on taxiways was misused. The ERG memo states, “As stated in an Advisory Circular of the U.S. Department of Transportation, before locating deicing facilities away from the terminal areas, an airport should first evaluate the u se of existing taxiways that minimize the taxiing time to the facility and, more important, the subsequent taxiing time remaining between treatment and takeoff...ERG outlined potential deicing pad locations at LGA, DCA, and JFK that would incorporate existin g taxiways.”70 We believe that ERG has misinterpreted and misused this language in several ways, as outlined in the following paragraphs. First, the language cited (which is in Section 2 - 5d of FAA AC 150/5300 - 14B) does not itself state or imply that taxiwa ys should be used as deicing facilities. The cited language references taxiways being used to minimize the time aircraft need to travel to a remote deicing facility (wherever it is sited) and then from that facility to the end of the runway. “The use of ex isting taxiways” in the cited language refers to how existing taxiways are used to traverse to a planned deicing facility, or from the deicing pad to the end of a runway. Second, FAA AC 150/5300 - 14B makes clear, in its text and numerical standards, that ta xiways and deicing pads (including taxi routes through deicing pads) should be considered as separate facilities: Section 2 - 1b, Centralized Deicing Facilities Off the Terminal: “Centralized deicing facilities have the following basic components...(2) bypass taxiing capability;” Section 2 - 1c, Remote Deicing Facilities: “Remote deicing facilities have the following components...(2) bypass taxiing capability;” Section 2 - 8, Bypass Taxiing Capability: “To further maximize departure flows for all departing aircraft, potential sites should have enough physical space to allow bypass taxiing capability for aircraft not needing treatment. This feature permits the facility to receive aircraft that require treatment, while allowing other aircraft to continue unimpeded for d eparture.” Section 3 - 2, Separation Standards for Off - Gate Aircraft Deicing Pads: “...Table 3 - 1 observes taxiway centerline to fixed or movable object criteria because VSZs [vehicle safety zones] house fixed and movable objects. Furthermore, Table 3 - 1 entries and footnotes ensure that sufficient separation exists between taxi centerlines and VSZs for VMAs [vehicle movement areas].” Table 3 - 1, Separation criteria for off - gate deicing pads having parallel taxiways: [includes separation standards for taxiway cent erline to edge of vehicle safety zone] Section 3 - 4a, Taxiway Centerline Surfaces Markings: Off - gate deicing facilities will have taxiway centerline surface markings for entering a deicing pad, moving through the deicing pad, and exiting the facility.” Sect ion 3 - 4b, Facility Boundary Surface Marking: Off - gate deicing facilities must have a taxiway/taxiway holding position surface marking to indicate the entrance and exit boundary of the facility...This marking reduces incursions by deicing crews and aircraft i nto the object free area of the connecting taxiway...Also, it identifies the ground control transfer points between the ATCT and facility control.” Section 4 - 1, Aircraft Access Routes: “Deicing facilities will have some form of bypass taxiing capability to a ccept aircraft requiring treatment without restricting other aircraft access189 to active runways.” ERG clearly did not take into consideration these FAA requirements when doing its analysis on the feasibility of siting pads, which makes this analysis incompl ete and, it would appear, unworkable as a basis for the Proposed Rule. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300 - 13, Airport Design, defines a taxiway as “a defined path established for the taxiing of aircraft from one part of an airport to another.”71 The taxiway sy stem “should provide for free movement to and from the runways, terminal/cargo, and parking areas. It is desirable to maintain a smooth flow with a minimum number of points requiring a change in the airplane's taxiing speed.”72 These functions of taxiways clearly differ from the functions of a deicing pad, where multiple aircraft may be parked for a half - hour or more, and where support vehicles and fixed objects may be present. Technically, a taxiway could be used for the deicing of aircraft, but aircraft p arked on the taxiway would block all aircraft behind them, and the taxiway would not provide for the collection of aircraft deicing fluid. Similarly, aircraft could move through a deicing pad as part of the pad operation, but only if adequate space for tha t movement is provided. FAA coordination and approval would be required. By placing the outlines for potential deicing pads on top of active taxiways at JFK and LGA, ERG has (1) effectively reduced the capacity of the deicing pads, by assuming that part of the pads would be used for taxiing, (2) effectively reduced the capacity of the airports, by removing active taxiways from service, and (3) severely affected the capacity of the airports, by interfering with the main aircraft movement routes to and from t he runways. In addition, the incorporation of taxiways into deicing pads (and assumption that the taxiways would still function as taxiways) would conflict with FAA standards, as explained in our later comments. Response: See the EPA response to comment (C_CDP_BASIS) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized deicing pad - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 87 The cost of a deicing pad is related closely to its siting, sizing, and design. The siting, s izing, and design of deicing pads are efforts that require specialized qualifications in airport operations and planning. There is no evidence in the record that airport experts with bona fide airport planning qualifications were involved in the preparatio n of the ERG memorandum.178 Using information on deicing pad costs without having proper qualifications can lead to misunderstanding the cost of a pad at a particular airport. The calculation of costs is not a simple, off - the - shelf quantification. BAT cost assessments and conclusions must include the complexity of airport operations and unique site - specific variables. Because airport experts were not involved in the preparation of ERG’s memorandum, the ERG memorandum lacks the understanding of complex airpo rt operations that is required for a proper foundation upon which to calculate costs. Response: See the EPA response to comment (C_CDP_BASIS) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized deicing pad - Basis of costs Comment In fo: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 90 The ERG memorandum uses information on the annual departures and total installed capital costs of deicing pads at four sample airports (CAK, PIT, Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport [“MSP”], and Cleveland Hopkins International Airport [“CLE”]) to develop the normalized capital cost. This approach is based on the oversimplified and flawed assumption that the characteristics of the deicing pads at one190 airport can directly translate into the requirements and costs fo r deicing pads at another. The Port Authority strongly disagrees with the EPA’s use of this approach because the requirements for a deicing pad system, and thus the costs, are highly site - and operation - specific. The number, locations, and sizes (and thus the costs) of the deicing pads at CAK, PIT, MSP, and CLE are based on the weather patterns, runway use patterns, runway configurations, taxiway access, peak - hour operations, fleet mix, site conditions, geology, geography, and a host of other factors unique and specific to those airports. The inherent problems with ERG’s approach are reflected in part in the wide range of normalized capital cost results (86 percent higher for CLE than for PIT).180 Consequently, the unique conditions and characteristics assoc iated with each of the “sample” airports highlight the flaw in the “model” airport approach. For reference, a few of the unique conditions and characteristics for each “model airport” are highlighted below. a. CAK unique conditions and characteristics The limited information on CAK available in the docket181 indicates that CAK is not an appropriate model for use in determining deicing pad costs because of its relatively small scale deicing operations. CAK served about 1.4 million total passengers in 2005, a small fraction (less than 5 percent) of the 40.9 million passengers served at JFK, 25.9 million at LGA, and 33.1 million at EWR in that year.182 Similarly, the 14,911 “total airport departures” at CAK listed in TDD Table 4 - 4 is less than 10 percent of the 154,606 departures at JFK, 192,127 at LGA, and 203,082 at EWR listed in Table 4 - 4. Further, information in the docket indicates that CAK serves only domestic destinations;183 a review of CAK’s current schedule indicates that about half of the 24 departure s per day are performed by commuter carriers.184 This information implies that the aircraft used at CAK are mostly regional jets and ADG III jet aircraft, much different from the mix of aircraft used at the Port Authority’s major airports (and in particula r JFK, which has a substantial number of international flights using large aircraft). Although the docket does not contain information on hourly departures, CAK’s schedule indicates that only five air carrier/commuter aircraft departures occur an hour at m ost

– again, much lower than the 40 to 60 hourly departures that can occur at the Port Authority’s three major airports. In addition, information in the docket indicates that the two deicing pads at CAK are centralized, on areas of the airfield adjacent to or near the passenger terminal building.185 One of the pads can accommodate up to three ADG III aircraft, and the other can accommodate up to three private aircraft or one ADG III aircraft.186 These pad characteristics are substantially different than the pad characteristics that would be required at the Port Authority airports. Specifically, CAK’s pad operation and characteristics are much smaller in size and quantity than larger airport operations, including the Port Authority airports. In contrast to CA K, the Port Authority airports use larger quantifies of ADF. The smaller deicing pad system used at CAK cannot be compared meaningfully to the pad system that would be required at the Port Authority airports because: • Land availability at the Port Authori ty airports is limited, preventing centralized or remote pads, • Larger sized aircraft

– up to ADG VI

– must be accommodated on the deicing pads, and • The number of aircraft positions is larger

– with their associated separations and vehicle movement area s. The deicing pad operations and pad characteristics at CAK in comparison to the Port Authority airports are drastically different. The siting and design factors noted above demonstrate that the characteristics of a small deicing pad system at a small air port, such as CAK, cannot readily be applied to a multiple - position, multiple - pad system at a large airport with land availability issues

– like the Port Authority airports. Based on the significant differences in deicing pad operations and characteristics , CAK should not be included in the pad cost analysis. b. PIT unique conditions and characteristics Although PIT is a large airport, it is different in major respects from the Port Authority airports and is, therefore, not a good representative “model” air port. PIT occupies 10,000 acres – more than twice that of JFK, almost five times the size of EWR, and almost 15 times the size of LGA.187 A review of the Airport Diagram indicates that most of the commercial use deicing pads are adjacent to the passenger te rminal facilities or are on aprons adjacent to other aviation facilities, locations not readily available at the Port Authority airports.188 A review of the list of nonstop flights from PIT during August 2009189 indicates that PIT served only four internat ional destinations with an average of approximately four departures per day

– indicating that the passenger aircraft fleet mix at PIT is not comparable to the fleet mix at JFK. From the information in the docket, it appears that PIT has one deicing pad tha t accommodates widebody aircraft, with a maximum of three positions. Two of the other191 deicing pads can accommodate up to three aircraft.190 The PIT fleet mix and operations level have varied widely, especially after a major hub airline suddenly pulled virt ually all of its operations out of the airport. This type of sudden change is the reality of the air travel business that has significant implications for airports, and their operations, but which has not been addressed by EPA. c. MSP unique conditions and characteristics MSP occupies about 3,400 acres, still substantially larger than EWR or LGA.191 A review of the Airport Diagram indicates that most of the deicing pads are near the ends of the runways.192 As demonstrated by our comments regarding land avai lability, deicing pads near the runway ends (adequate to comply with the Proposed Rule) are not feasible at JFK or LGA, and a rule - compliant pad near the runway end used during winter storms is not feasible at EWR. Although MSP aircraft operations and inte rnational flight activity seem similar to activity at the Port Authority airports, approximately 80 percent of aircraft operations at MSP are performed by one carrier. In that aspect, MSP is different from LGA and JFK, which are not dominated by one carrie r. Because deicing is conducted by each individual airline, airport coordination with multiple airlines raises the cost and increases the operational issues for the airport and its deicing pad systems. These important considerations are not discussed or re cognized in the Proposed Rule. d. CLE unique conditions and characteristics It appears that CLE occupies about 2,000 acres

– about 40 percent the size of JFK, about the same size as EWR, and more than twice the size of LGA.193 CLE served about 11.1 million total passengers in 2008,194 substantially less than the 47.8 million passengers served at JFK, 23.1 million at LGA, and 35.4 million at EWR in that year.195 Similarly, the 116,569 “total airport departures” at CLE listed in TDD Table 4 - 4 is substantially less than the 154,606 departures at JFK, 192,127 at LGA, and 203,082 at EWR listed in Table 4 - 4. A review of information in the docket and elsewhere indicates that CLE uses a centralized deicing pad system adjacent to the passenger terminal

– a location n ot available at the Port Authority airports.196 197 The CLE deicing pad system can accommodate up to eight aircraft simultaneously and up to 30 aircraft “during peak times,” and includes more than 40 acres of new pavement and four taxiways for entry and qu euing.198 These characteristics seem realistic for a deicing pad system at a large airport that has sufficient land available to accommodate such a system. The size of this operation highlights potential land availability and taxiway use and access issues that such a system would raise at Port Authority airports. Based on the review of the unique conditions and characteristics at the four “model” airports, the Port Authority believes that using a “model airport” approach to determine costs is inappropriate, inaccurate and potentially dangerous for airport operations. Assuming that airport operations may be oversimplified and averaged is an unacceptable and dangerous basis upon which to propose a rule for deicing operations. Total Installed Costs were Reporte d Incorrectly. Table 1 of the ERG memo reports the total installed capital costs for all deicing pads at the four “model” airports.199 The table notes that the costs are reported in 2006 dollars. The table does not note the factor used to adjust the costs (there is a footnote number shown in the cost column but no reference in the bottom of the table). Because the Port Authority cannot replicate some of the numbers in the table based on the original cost numbers shown in the docket, the Port Authority is co ncerned about the missing information regarding the factor used. For CAK and CLE, the missing factor is of no consequence since the deicing pad systems there were constructed in 2005 and 2006.200 At PIT, however, it appears that ERG used 2001 and prior yea r cost numbers and did not adjust them for inflation.201 At MSP, it appears that ERG used an adjustment factor for the costs of the five pads (constructed between 1998 and 2005), but we are not able to replicate the results. We are particularly concerned a bout the adjustment factor used because in a separate memorandum on the costs of anaerobic fluidized bed reactors, ERG used the Bank of Canada CPI Calculator to adjust reported costs.202 ERG may have used a similar, inappropriate adjustment factor for the deicing pad system costs. We also believe that there is a second error regarding the costs reported for PIT. Correspondence between PIT and ERG indicates that the costs originally given to ERG for the newest deicing pad (Pad S) did not include design or co nstruction management costs, which would add approximately 30 percent to the total.203 Using this information and the updated PIT estimate,204 we estimate the total costs of the pad system at PIT to be approximately $38.7 million (in 2001 dollars), not $35 million as reported by ERG. When this number is adjusted to reflect 2006 dollars, the cost for the pad system at PIT is substantially higher than reported in the ERG memorandum. As the normalized capital192 cost for the pad at PIT is the lowest of the costs for the four sample airports, the cost errors have implications for the inaccurate average cost factor used by EPA, and thus the estimated costs of pads at all airports. Because of these errors in the determination of total costs, in addition to the other concerns highlighted above with respect to the ERG memorandum, the Port Authority believes the ERG memorandum may not be referenced as a basis for the Proposed Rule. [FOOTNOTE: 184 http://www.akroncantonairport.com/fids.php?adi=D&pageid=35, accessed Januar y 22, 2010.] [FOOTNOTE: 187 http://www.pitairport.com/PIT_fact_sheet, accessed January 26, 2010.] [FOOTNOTE: 188 http://www.airnav.com/airport/KPIT, accessed January 20, 2010.] [FOOTNOTE: 189 http://www.pitairport.com/daily_nonstop_flights, accessed Decemb er 2, 2009.] [FOOTNOTE: 191 http://www.mspairport.com/about - msp.aspx, accessed January 22, 2010.] [FOOTNOTE: 192 http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMSP, accessed January 22, 2010.] [FOOTNOTE: 193 There is limited information in the docket on CLE; the number is based on a review of multiple (but unofficial) Web sites.] [FOOTNOTE: 194 http://www.clevelandairport.com/site/414/default.aspx, accessed January 26, 2010.] [FOOTNOTE: 195 Port Authority activity data from 2008 Airport Activity Report.] Response: In res ponse to concerns about deicing pad costs, see the EPA response to comment (C_CDP_BASIS) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized deicing pad - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 91 In TDD Table 11 - 5 , CLE is no longer included among the sample airports. We reviewed information in the docket and could not find a reference to the reason CLE was removed from the analysis.206 The estimated cost per departure at CLE was the highest of the four airports stu died by ERG. Thus the removal of CLE from the analysis reduces the average normalized cost, from $366.50 per departure in the ERG memorandum to $314.56 per departure in the Proposed Rule TDD. This $52 difference (14 percent) in the factor, when applied to the hundreds of thousands of departures at Port Authority airports, results in a significant difference in cost totaling millions of dollars. This underestimate applies to all airports where deicing pads are required. The EPA’s reasoning for removing CLE i s not given. EPA has not provided its reasoning for not including the CLE costs. The Port Authority believes that the costs at CLE were treated as “outliers” in the analysis and, therefore, removed. For all of the reasons we have noted previously, the cost of a deicing pad system at a particular airport is highly airport - specific. The fact that CLE was an “outlier” in the ERG analysis indicates to us that a problem exists with the use of a normalized cost in general, not that the three other airports are mo re representative. Response: See the EPA response to comment (C_CDP_BASIS) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized deicing pad - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 57 In a supporting memo on determining the feasibility of constructing and operating deicing pads at land constrained airports53, EPA crafted a rationale for determining the number and size of deicing pads necessary at airports subject to 60 percent collectio n requirements. This rationale is an overly simplistic formula. First, a single deicing pad is unlikely to suffice for the operational needs of airports using significant amounts of ADF. EPA recognizes that Pittsburgh, Denver, and Detroit Metro Internation al Airports

– those that EPA attests already can meet the standard through pads

– rely on five, four, and four193 deicing pads, respectively. Second, EPA is mistaken in creating a metric that relates the number of deicing pads necessary to the number of runwa ys. EPA is also mistaken to relate the number of deicing pads necessary to the number of annual departures. Such considerations require site - specific analyses that are necessary to effectively size and site deicing pads. Such considerations include facilit y layout, historical weather data, and airport operations information to determine which runway use configurations are most commonly associated with snow and icing events. Such analyses are essential to effectively siting deicing pads near the runway ends that are most likely to be used by departing aircraft during snow and icing conditions. Response: See the EPA response to comment (C_CDP_BASIS) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized deicing pad - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 101 The Limited Data EPA Relied on to Estimate Deicing Pad Costs is Not Indicative of Costs at Other Airports. To determine the costs associated with meeting the proposed 60 percent collection requirement, EPA developed average normalized cost estimates for installation of centralized deicing pads based on the costs to install deicing pads at three other airports. In the TDD, EPA calculated an average normalized cost based on installation costs and annual departures from three airports: Akron - Canton, Pittsburgh, and Minneapolis.77 [Footnote 77: However, in the supporting memo, “Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for Centralized Deicing Pads” EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 0845 (March 2008), an average normalized cost was developed that also included costs from Cleveland. EPA then eliminated Cleveland from its final analysis, without explanation. We can only assume EPA did not include Cleveland because the airport does not meet EPA’s proposed BAT. This would explain EPA’s $1.8 million as signed annual costs for that airport.] EPA’s deicing pad costing methodology does not accurately predict the installation and operational costs of deicing pads at the airports potentially subject to the proposed 60 percent collection requirements that do n ot currently have pads. In practice, airports may build deicing pads as part of a larger airport infrastructure project. EPA has not indicated whether any of the airports relied upon in determining deicing pad construction costs installed those pads as par t of a larger infrastructure project or as standalone projects. If they were part of a larger project, simply pulling the deicing pad “portion” of the project out of total costs would be deceiving. For standalone projects, the cost will be significantly hi gher, not only because of the “economy of scale” factors associated with mobilization/demobilization, engineering, surveying, quantity purchasing, etc., but also because of the complexity of working within existing operating facilities. For instance, trenc hing and piping under a runway being constructed is significantly cheaper and easier than directional boring under an existing runway. Airports required to construct pads pursuant to the Proposed Rule, including the NSPS, would likely not be afforded the t ime and opportunity to incorporate pads into a larger project. EPA must account for any such difference. Response: See the EPA response to comment (C_CDP_BASIS) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9. EPA used available cost and system data to est imate costs for the industry. EPA acknowledges that costs may be higher at some airports and lower at others. However, in order to estimate costs for the entire industry, EPA relied on available data to develop cost equations that could be applied to each model airport. In the final rule, EPA has redefined a “new source” as a new airport. See Section IV.B of the final preamble. EPA consulted with FAA about the potential for construction of new airports over the next several years and FAA stated that there are currently no plans for new airports to begin construction in the194 next several years. As a result, EPA concludes that any potential new airport has adequate time in their respective planning process to incorporate the NSPS requirements. See Section IV. C and Section VI.C of the final preamble. C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized deicing pad - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 102 EPA also has not analyzed or discussed whether the deicing pad installation costs reflect pad systems that meet EPA proposed technical specifications and comply with the collection of 60 percent of available ADF. If the deicing pad system costs EPA used in its cost analysis do not precisely meet the proposed requirements, then EPA has not properly costed its propos ed collection standard. Response: See the EPA response to comment (C_CDP_BASIS) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized deicing pad - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 103 EPA Mistakenly Assumed Airports with Deicing Pads Already Comply. Several airports subject to the proposed 60 percent collection requirements already operate deicing pad systems. EPA did not ascertain whether those airports actually collect 60 percent of available ADF. However, in estimating the cost impacts of the Proposed Rule, EPA mistakenly assumed those airports meet BAT and thus will have no costs under the Proposed Rule. There are a number of significant problems with this assumption. First, some of those airports do not c onsistently collect 60 percent of applied ADF. For example, EPA assumed that, because Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC) currently operates 22 deicing pads, the airport would not incur costs under the Proposed Rule. However, with its current system , SLC only collects about 20 percent of available ADF, even with its pad system in place. The airport is in the process of constructing six end of runway deicing pads (with no guarantee they will achieve 60 percent collection). SLC currently is constructin g the first three pads (each of which will accommodate 8 aircraft deicing positions) at an expected cost in excess of $181 million. If we assume that the entire SLC pad construction project may reach $400 million, without any guarantee of ultimate performa nce, then EPA’s estimated cost for this one airport alone is underestimated by at least $400 million. That error alone could have significant ramifications on EPA’s determination of BAT. Response: In response to concerns about deicing pad costs, see the E PA response to comment ( C_CDP_BASIS) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9. EPA developed an estimate of the percent of available ADF that is collected and controlled at each airport, based on the best available data on the airport's existing storm water collection as reported by airport personnel in the airport questionnaire or during EPA site visits. For more information about the determination of the collection and control percentages applied to each airport, see the ADF Collection and Control Ef ficiency Review Addendum memorandum, DCN AD01270.195 C_CDP_BASIS - Centralized deicing pad - Basis of costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1242 - 1 The Authority is concerned with the cost implications of the proposed legislation and the assumptions upon which the legislation is based. Response: EPA has revised many of its costs estimates and assumptions based largely on comments. See Section VII.A of the final preamble for a summary of how EPA estimated compliance costs for the final rule and the final TDD for more detailed discussion. Because this commenter did not provide any specifics or data to support its assertion, EPA cannot address these comments more specifically. Finally, see the EPA response to comment (C_CDP_BASIS) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_CAP - Centralized deicing pad - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 9 The estimated costs for ANC are incorrect as listed in supporting documents. It is important to realize that we are an existing facility and as such have the following restraints; a. Location of storage and treatment cannot be optimized due to existing development. Our storage and treatment will be farther away than estimated by EPA. Our initial estimate is 10,000 to 15,000 feet of piping w ill be required to ensure pads are located so the primary three departure configurations will be met, b. Location of deicing pad cannot be optimized due to existing development. Will have to locate based on existing runways and taxiways while maintaining f low of aircraft. c. Multiple pads will have to be installed so that our maximum departure rate will be met. Average departures are not what drive the number of deicing pads. If we do not have the capacity, transient cargo flights will go to a different air port due to the delays, d. Multiple pads will have to be installed at three different locations to meet our need to adjust departure runway for weather conditions due to winds and clearing of runways. (Departures to the north, south, and east.) Response: After considering the comments and reviewing the information in its record, EPA is not promulgating a uniform collection or treatment requirement for existing facilities, therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule with respect to existing sources. To the extent that any of the comments in this category pertain to the capital costs of CDPs for new sources, Additionally, EPA conducted a barrier to entry analysis that does not rely on detailed costs of individual components of a collection and treatment system. C_CDP_CAP - Centralized deicing pad - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 13 Additional Collection Costs: Page 44691, Section VII, (D), (3) (i), states that "Not all airports estimated to be in the scope of this pro posed rule would incur ADF collection costs under it, because many of these airports already have ADF collection systems in place (Section VIII.0 below). For example, of the196 estimated 14 airports that would have to meet the 60 percent ADF collection requir ement in this proposal, seven already have installed deicing pads that would capture at least 60 percent of the ADF." Is there data confirming that all of the referenced facilities with deice pads are at or above 60% collection? Or that they have been desi gned to meet a 60% capability? If not, most will have to enhance their operations by providing "GRVs" (as proposed by the rule) which they may not have used in the past in conjunction with the pads. Additionally, upgrades to piping, pumps, and storage coul d be required to handle the additional volumes necessary to ensure the minimum 60% capture. As such, these facilities would incur additional costs associated with this requirement. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_CAP - Centralized deicing pad - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 65 TDD Table 11 - 5, page 11 - 17, summarizes the "Total Installed Capital Costs" for deicing pads at three individual airports. Was it confirmed that t he scope of work for all three airport projects were the same or similar, to ensure that the normalized capital costs related to a "deice pad" only. (I.e. did any project include aspects not applicable to the others; demolition of existing ramps or taxiway s, excessive taxiway or conveyance piping costs due to the remote location/distance from existing infrastructure, lift stations, automated valves or controls, virgin ADF storage or distribution, conveyance piping, storage tanks, ponds, or lagoons, connecti ons to sanitary or other treatment?) Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_CAP - Centralized deicing pad - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 42 EPA Misapplies Its Own Formula for Estimating Capital Costs for CDPs In simplest terms, EPA’s error in deriving estimates for the capital costs for CDPs is that it multiplies by the wrong number. In more technical terms, EPA “normalizes” CDP costs on a per - annual - departure basis, but when calculating CPD costs it multiplies the “normalized” figure by the number of deicing season departures. As a result, EPA underestimates capital costs for CDPs by over half . EPA explains in both the TDD and its supporting memorandum, that “[t]o estimate installed capital costs for deicing pads, EPA normalized the costs based on the number of takeoffs during deicing season.” 160 The problem is, EPA did not use the number of take - offs during deicing season to derive its “norm alized” number, but instead used the number of total annual departures.161 The “normalized” cost per departure, $314.56, is per annual departure, not per departure during deicing season. Document - 0845 , the memorandum presenting the analysis upon which th e discussion in the TDD is based, makes this perfectly clear, as does the heading of the extreme right hand column of Table 11 - 5 in the TDD itself. In addition, a review of the operations data from the airports used as the basis for deriving the metric (CA K, PIT and MSP) also makes this clear

– in each case, the total number of annual departures is the number used to derive the metric. However, when estimating the capital costs of deicing pads at airports, EPA multiplies $314.56 by the number of departures during deicing season (based on an assumed 5 or 6 month deicing season for each airport 162), leading it to underestimate the cost by 58% or 50% (again, depending on the assumed length of the deicing season).163197 Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_CAP - Centralized deicing pad - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 6 The cost to construct these two new pads is prohibitive. According to the CH2M HILL Deicing Pad Report, the estimat ed construction costs alone for the North and East Pads would total approximately $1.55 billion, without accounting for substantial necessary costs such as payments to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for use of public tidelands, environmental mitigation costs and permitting costs.112 [FOOTNOTE: 112 See CH2M Hill Deicing Pad Report at pp. 12 - 13. The rough order of magnitude cost for physical construction is approximately $779,000,000 for the North Pad and $772,000,000 for the East Pad. Again, these estimat es do not include costs for non - construction related items such as land purchase, environmental mitigation and permits and approvals for construction in Boston Harbor. See id. at p. 13.] Moreover, the estimated cost to construct the Expanded Juliet Pad wou ld add another $22,300,000.113 [FOOTNORE: 113 See id. at pp. 13 - 14.]Thus, the projected construction costs alone for the three - pad scenario (not accounting for storage and other costs discussed below) would exceed $1.57 billion. By comparison, the cost to construct the new Terminal A at Boston - Logan

– which is the newest terminal at the Airport, and the first LEED - certified airline terminal in the United States

– was $350 million, less than 25% of the construction costs for the three - pad scenario. On this b asis alone, the three - pad scenario is not, by any reasonable measure, practicable or economically feasible. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_CAP - Centralized deicing pad - capital costs Comment I nfo: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 89 The ERG memorandum uses data on annual departures and total installed capital costs in 2006 dollars at four “sample airports” to determine a normalized capital cost per departure for use in costing deicing pads at other airports. (EPA modified the ERG resu lts for use in the TDD; that issue will be discussed in later comments.) This approach assumes that deicing pads are standard facilities, with the differences in cost among facilities at different airports based mainly on the differences in annual aircraft departures.179 This type of analysis is a gross oversimplification of the cost of an aircraft deicing pad. In fact, the cost of an aircraft deicing pad at an airport is based on a number of factors, including but not limited to: (1) The number of hourly d epartures during winter conditions (related to the number of aircraft positions on the pad and thus pad size), (2) The mix of aircraft serving the airport (related to the largest aircraft for which the pad must be designed, as well as the mix of various ai rcraft positions on the pad, and thus pad size), (3) Runway use patterns during winter storm conditions (related to the number of pads that are constructed), (4) Runway configuration and access to runway ends (related to the number of pads and their locati on), (5) Land availability (related to pad size and location, need to demolish structures, need to displace existing uses, associated storage capacity, and other factors), (6) FAA deicing pad design standards (related to the size and location of the pad), (7) The construction of a centralized or remote pad (related to decisions regarding the use of fixed equipment at the pad, routes needed for access by ground vehicles, and other factors), and (8) Design and construction costs (which are extremely high in t he New York/New Jersey region). The number of annual departures is not a valid surrogate for any one of these factors. Furthermore, the number of hourly departures and the aircraft fleet mix

– two of the most basic factors involved in deicing pad design

– are not captured by the number of annual departures. For example, JFK is shown in TDD Table 4 - 4 as having fewer annual departures than LGA, but JFK can have198 more hourly departures than LGA. In addition, JFK has a fleet mix that is weighted toward larger ai rcraft than LGA’s fleet mix. These factors alone would indicate that a deicing pad system at JFK would cost more than a system at LGA. But the ERG memorandum indicates erroneously (and the EPA cost numbers claim) that a pad system at LGA costs more. The ab ove examples address two of the eight factors listed above. EPA should have considered all of the factors. Because the crucial cost factors were not considered, EPA’s cost - benefit analysis for this rulemaking is flawed and cannot be applied. Response: Se e the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. For any comments that may pertain to new sources, or to land availability, see response to comment code category C_CDP_Basis, 1218.1 excerpt #9 C_CDP_CAP - Centralized deicing pad - c apital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 92 The Proposed Rule TDD, p. 11 - 33, shows the formula that a reader would conclude was used to estimate deicing pad capital costs: Deicing Pad Capital Cost ($) = $314.56 x departures With this formul a, one would use the annual departure numbers in TDD Table 4 - 4, multiply them by $314.56 (cost per departure), and arrive at the EPA’s capital cost estimates. That method would be consistent with the analysis in the ERG memorandum, where ERG used annual de partures (the same numbers as in TDD Table 4 - 4) and deicing pad costs to arrive at the normalized cost factor.207 Using the formula from the TDD, the following are the results for the three major Port Authority airports, along with the corresponding estima tes in EPA’s cost database: [See table comparing EPA TDD and cost datatbase formula results] In all cases, the EPA cost estimates are less than half of the costs arrived at using the EPA’s own formula. The differences are substantial (almost $100 million w hen totaled for the Port Authority’s three major airports). The reason for the difference may be found in a draft document in the docket.208 Although the document is labeled “draft deliberative

– do not cite or quote,” it is the only place in the supportin g documentation provided by EPA that contains an explanation of the formula the EPA used. The formula cited in that document is different from the formula in the Proposed Rule TDD: Deicing Pad Capital Cost = Deicing Pad Capital Cost Factor x (airport depar tures/12) x (number of deicing months) This formula indicates that the EPA used the cost per departure noted above and multiplied it, not by annual departures, but by departures only during the deicing season. According to this formula, if an airport has 1 20,000 departures a year and its deicing season is four months, there are about 40,000 departures during the deicing season. Instead of multiplying the cost factor by 120,000 departures (consistent with the ERG method), EPA would multiply the cost by 40,00 0

– getting a much lower result. EPA’s cost factor of $314.56 per departure was determined using annual departures. To use it correctly, annual departures must be part of the equation. EPA’s estimates are in error because they substituted seasonal departur es for annual departures, and thus used ERG’s equation incorrectly. As demonstrated by the table above, that error totals almost $100 million for the Port Authority’s major airports alone.209 [FOOTNOTE: 208 Table 2, Queries in the Airport Deicing Costing D atabase, DCN AD00904.] [FOOTNOTE: 209 There is another major problem with the EPA’s formula as well. The formula uses the number of deicing months at each airport, which appears to be based on the number of days each airport reports deicing for the three y ears EPA surveyed. If an airport reported that deicing occurred on at least one day in a particular month, that month was counted toward the number of deicing months at the airport. As a result of this method, there were 6 months of deicing at JFK but only 5 months at LGA, 12 miles away. This small difference ripples through the formula to have a major effect on the cost results]199 Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. For new sources, see response to C_CDP_Bas is 1281.1 excerpt 9. C_CDP_CAP - Centralized deicing pad - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 93 In order to provide a factual basis for comparison, the Port Authority developed its own cost estimates for deicing pad systems at JFK, LGA, and EWR.210 The estimates are based on a hypothetical set of deicing pads required under this Proposed Rule, associated pipes and infrastructure, and short - term storage tanks, using a memorandum prepared by ERG on land availability,211 data on the hou rly departures and fleet mix at each airport, and data on deicing fluid use and storm water runoff volumes at each airport. The estimates are attached to these comments as Appendix D. It cannot be emphasized strongly enough that these hypothetical deicing pads could not be built, and are not feasible for the operational, regulatory, cost, and other reasons noted previously and elsewhere in these comments. In addition, the cost estimates are based on only one year’s worth of airport data and a host of grossl y oversimplified assumptions. This information is provided to clearly and definitively indicate the potential magnitude of the costs of compliance with the Proposed Rule, and to demonstrate that the EPA cost estimates are much lower than they should be. Th e following discussion provides more detail on our cost analysis. 1. Underlying Assumptions Pad Locations. For JFK and LGA, we used the locations identified in the ERG memorandum on land availability. These locations were chosen only to provide a consisten t basis for comparison. As noted in our comments on land availability, these locations would conflict with FAA airport design and other standards, and would cause major taxiway movement and other operational problems that would exacerbate an already unacce ptable level of delays. We did not use other locations at JFK and LGA because there is not adequate land available to provide deicing pads of a size that could collect the amount of fluid to comply with the Proposed Rule. For EWR, we used the so - called “ba llpark” area (a historical term used at EWR) adjacent to Terminal C, which Continental Airlines already uses for deicing, and a portion of the airfield adjacent to Runway 4L. The ballpark is within the Continental Airlines leasehold. In keeping with FAA re gulations, Continental Airlines dictates its use and function, not the Port Authority. The airside area adjacent to Runway 4L could not be used for deicing because it would conflict with FAA safety separation standards and would interfere with taxiway flow s. Again, these locations were chosen only to provide a basis for comparison. Simply put, there is not adequate land available for Proposed Rule - compliant deicing pads at EWR. Peak Hour Departures and Pad Size. As noted in our comments on land availability , a key factor in determining pad size is the number of peak hour departures (as opposed to the annual departures used by EPA). From a practical standpoint, deicing pads would be sized based on the number of peak hour departures occurring during winter sto rm conditions (typically lower than average). A preferred location would be selected for a deicing pad based on the primary runway configuration during winter storm conditions. The Proposed Rule requires that the deicing pads be designed and operated to ca pture all ADF (above the “safe taxiing” limit of 25 gallons). To comply with this requirement of the Proposed Rule, deicing pads need to be larger in order to handle peak hour departures whenever deicing might occur (including during times of higher peak h our activity with no departure schedule reductions). In addition, rule - compliant deicing pads would need to be installed in multiple locations, to reflect the multiple runway use configurations at JFK and LGA (based on wind direction and dictated by FAA) a nd the taxiway use limitations at JFK, LGA and EWR (discussed in land availability comments). As a result, the analysis uses hypothetical deicing pads at JFK and LGA that are sized to handle a total of approximately 40 aircraft positions, and the pads at E WR to handle approximately 30 positions. (These numbers are based on hourly departure and runway use data for 2008; a proper sizing effort would be based on analysis of data over a longer period.) Fleet Mix and Pad Size. Another key factor in determining p ad size is the mix of aircraft serving the airports. Although200 the Proposed Rule requires that deicing pads be sized to accommodate the “most demanding” aircraft, the EPA analysis does not include consideration of aircraft fleet mix.212 We used detailed air craft operations data by aircraft type for 2008 to determine an aircraft mix for each airport (discussed in land availability comments). Based on that mix of aircraft, we sized the deicing pads by Aircraft Design Group category, as follows: As with the hou rly departures, a proper deicing pad sizing effort would be based on the analysis of data over a longer period. We have included the numbers here because they indicate how the mix of aircraft serving the airport can affect the pad size. At LGA, the pads wo uld be sized predominantly to accommodate ADG III aircraft such as the Boeing MD - 80. At JFK, the pads would be sized to accommodate more ADG IV and V aircraft, reflecting the larger aircraft serving that airport. A limited number of positions for ADG VI ai rcraft, such as the Airbus 380, must also be available. At EWR, the positions would mostly be for ADG III aircraft, with a substantial number of ADG IV aircraft positions as well. These differences in pad design are not reflected in the basic “annual depar tures” number used by EPA for deicing pad size or cost estimates.213 Fleet mix is a business decision made by airlines. Airports do not dictate the airlines’ fleet mix, but work with airlines and FAA to ensure safe and efficient facilities to accommodate f leet mix. Airlines are keenly aware that costly modifications to airfield infrastructure undertaken by airports are paid for through flight fees paid by the airlines. Therefore, all parties strive to make only prudent and feasible modifications with the go al of improving operational efficiencies and safety. This delicate balance between flight operations and safety is missing from EPA’s Proposed Rule. Because of the lack of acknowledgement of the many issues involved in airport operations within the Propose d Rule, the Port Authority maintains the EPA proposal for installation of deicing collection, storage and treatment at its airport facilities is neither feasible nor prudent. [FOOTNOTE: 213 The ERG February, 2008 memorandum on land availability uses annual departures to come up with a minimum total pad area required for each airport. For JFK, the estimate (1.5 million square feet) is similar to the 1.6 million - square - foot estimate we derived based on hourly departures and fleet mix. At LGA, however, the es timate (1.8 million square feet) is almost twice the 0.9 - million square foot estimate we derived. The differences point again to the problems with using annual departures as a factor in the EPA evaluation.] Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_CAP - Centralized deicing pad - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 97 The following table summarizes the Port Authority cost estimates for deicing pads, event - based storage tanks, and pipin g at the three major airports. EPA’s cost estimates are included for comparison. As shown in the table, the Port Authority estimates are higher than EPA’s estimates by approximately $98 million for JFK, $45 million for LGA, and $31 million for EWR. The tot al difference in costs is approximately $174 million. [ See submittal for table of Port Authority estimated CDP capital costs ] One obvious reason that the numbers are different is that the EPA numbers are expressed in 2006 dollars and the Port Authority num bers in 2009 dollars. We could have used a construction cost index to adjust the EPA numbers to be comparable, but we left the numbers “as is” to make the point that the EPA used outdated information in its analysis. At the very least, the Proposed Rule sh ould have been based on costs adjusted to 2009 dollars. We have to pay present dollars, and we cannot judge the economic feasibility of deicing pad systems based on costs that are three - plus years in the past. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9.201 C_CDP_CAP - Centralized deicing pad - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 98 EPA’s use of inconsistent formulas alone could contribute about $100 million to the difference in cost estimat es. It is more difficult to attach numbers to the other problems with the overall approach, but the differences could be substantial. The difference in cost estimates may also be due to construction costs varying widely across the United States. The follow ing table (based on information from RS Means) shows the differences in heavy construction costs between the New York area and the Cleveland, Minneapolis, and Pittsburgh areas (used in EPA’s model airport approach to the cost estimates). Average Cost Index of three cities: 99.9 + 111.5 + 99.6 / 3 = 103.4 Ratio of Average Cost Index: Cost Index of New York is 103.4 : 133.2 133.2 - 103.4 = 29.8, (29.8 / 103.4)(100) = 28.8 percent According to the table, construction is about 29 percent more costly in New York t han in the cities EPA analyzed. Based on our review of the docket, EPA did not consider regional construction cost differences in its analysis, but it must. The Port Authority maintains that EPA’s failure to do so renders invalid the benefit cost analysis used to justify this Proposed Rule. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. (EPA did a BTE analysis for NSPS, no detailed costs) C_CDP_CAP - Centralized deicing pad - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1233.1 - 5 Estimated costs to Newark for a pad is $11 million. There is not enough room to build a pad that can support all of Newark departure operations and if land was available, the cost to construct a pad sized to handle all Newark departures, w ould cost in excess of $80 million based on past construction costs at that airport. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_CAP - Centralized deicing pad - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 00 38 - 1239.1 - 48 Page 11 - 17, Section 11 - 5. EPA based the normalized cost to install central deicing pads from three airports. The cost includes the total installed capital cost for the deicing pads, which includes piping and tankage. It is not indicated if t he three airports conducted any ADF collection prior to construction of the deicing pads. Some of the infrastructure may be in place and be able to be used at an airport that is already collecting ADF at the gate areas and should be taken into account in d etermining the cost assumption for a specific airport. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. For new sources, see response to C_CDP_Basis 1218.1 excerpt 9.202 C_CDP_CAP - Centralized deicing pad - capital costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1242 - 2 We believe that the costs to individual airports will in many instances far exceed the $714 million dollar industry wide cost estimate assumptions. The Authority has been investigating possible cost implications associated with the installation of deicing fluid collection systems here at Memphis International Airport. Preliminary costs estimates indicate the actual capital outlay (excluding annual operating costs) will exceed $200 million. Response: See the comm ent response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_O&M - Centralized deicing pad - O&M costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 77 The Metric for CDP O&M Costs Is Arbitrary EPA derives its metric for CDP O&M costs from information supplied by a single airport, MKE. From that information it determined that CDP O&M costs are equal to $8.87/departure. However, EPA had previously derived precisely the same metric using information from CLE, arriving at a $20.60/departure cos t. Without explanation, EPA simply discarded the CLE - derived figure in favor of the much lower MKE - derived figure. EPA thus deems one airport to be representative of the entire industry in favor of another, though it offers no explanation as to why one air port could be representative of the entire industry or why MKE is more representative than CLE. Response: See EPA’s comment code C_CDP_CAP response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_O&M - Centralized deicing pad - O&M costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 68 As presented earlier, it seems very inaccurate to use the data (limited to one airport) related to a "plug and pump" operation to estimate the O&M costs of a deice pad. Since a deice pad is at the far end of the Active - to - Passive collection method scale, it would be assumed that the operational and maintenance costs of this collection method would be lower than the other methods, but that is impossible to determine by the analysis provided, since "GRV" and "Pl ug and Pump" are reported on a "per outfall" basis, while the deice pad is on a "per annual departure" basis. Response: See EPA’s comment code C_CDP_CAP response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_O&M - Centralized deicing pad - O&M costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 77 The review of TDD page 12 - 1, section 12.1: It is our experience that to achieve greater than 60% capture rates that the deice pads must be active beyond the SOFP days (even with "GRV" cleaning surfaces). As203 such, calculating electrical consumption based on SOFP days/year will under estimate the electrical consumption for a deice pad, in addition to the observations made regarding motor sizing and pipeline length presented above. Response: See EPA’s comment code C_CDP_CAP response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_O&M - Centralized deicing pad - O&M costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1224.2 - 3 • The total cost of these delays over the next ten years would be between $65 million and $167 million. [See section 3: Estimation of delay costs of this submittal below for methodology and data for CDP delay costs estimates for Logan Airport] Response: See EPA’s comment code C_CDP_CAP response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_O&M - Centralized deicing pad - O&M costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1224.2 - 5 Costs of Incremental Taxiing and Queuing Times for Deicing at Pad Juliet [The increased time required for deicing at Pad Juliet, whether for taxiing or for queuing at the pad, results in additional costs to airlines and air passengers. Airlines and general aviation operators would incur added aircraft operating costs and passengers would lose productivity due to the longer times req uired to complete their travel. Aircraft costs that result from delays associated with Pad Juliet were estimated based on representative aircraft types in the Logan fleet mix and reported airline and general aviation aircraft operating costs per block hour . The costs incurred by passengers aboard the delayed aircraft were estimated using the FAA recommended values of time for airline and general aviation passengers. In the Low Case, which assumes a throughput of 36 aircraft per hour, the total cost of delay s associated with deicing at Pad Juliet is $4.4 million in 2010 and $7.7 million in 2020.3 [FOOTNOTE: 3 Cost estimates for 2020 do not include an adjustment for inflation.] In the High Case, which assumes a lower hourly throughput of 27 aircraft, the total cost of delays ranges from $10.5 million in 2010 to $21.0 million in 2020. (See Exhibit 1 - 7) Exhibit 1 - 7: Total Cost of Delays Associated with the Use of Pad Juliet for Deicing at Logan Airport

– Base Case and Forecast [See submittal for data table provid ed by commenter, page 9] Total Costs (In Millions of Constant Dollars) Aircraft and Passenger Delay and Costs Resulting From Centralized Aircraft Deicing at Logan International Airport, February 24, 2010 Page 9 The total cost of delays to airlines in the L ow Case is estimated at $1.9 million in 2010 and $3.3 million in 2020. Airline costs in the High Case are estimated at $4.5 million in 2010 and $9.1 million in 2020. Airline costs increase over the forecast period faster than the growth in aircraft operati ons because queuing delays will increase exponentially as the level of flight demand approaches and exceeds the throughput capacity of the CDF. In the Low Case, total passenger costs related to the use of Pad Juliet are estimated at $2.5 million in 2010 an d $4.4 million in 2020. Under the High Case assumptions, passenger costs increase to $6.0 million in 2010 and $11.9 million in 2020. Exhibit 1 - 8: 10 - year Cumulative Costs of Delays from Centralized Deicing Operations at Logan Airport [See submittal for dat a table provided by commenter, page 10] Cumulative Costs of Delays to Aircraft Operators and Passengers Over a 10 - year period, the cumulative cost of delays to aircraft operators and passengers is estimated at between $65.0 million and $167.1 million. The cumulative cost to aircraft operators ranges from $28.1 million in the Low Case to $72.4 million in the High Case. The cumulative204 cost incurred by passengers on delayed aircraft is forecast at $36.8 million to $94.7 million. Response: See EPA’s comment c ode C_CDP_CAP response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_O&M - Centralized deicing pad - O&M costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 43 EPA Also Misapplies Its Own Formula for Estimating O&M Costs for CDPs EPA repeat s this error when estimating CDP O&M Costs. Specifically, it derives a per - annual departure metric for estimating CDP O&M Costs, but when it applies the formula the Agency multiplies the metric ($8.87 per annual departure) by the number of deicing season d epartures. Response: See EPA’s comment code C_CDP_CAP response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_O&M - Centralized deicing pad - O&M costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 11 Due to space constraints and the infeasibility of building into Boston Harbor, the Expanded Juliet Pad could not be sized large enough to accommodate all current and future throughput without delays. [As discussed above, current peak departures would requi re 15 deicing slots, and projected 2020 peak departures would require 17 slots. However, the maximum number of slots that could be placed on the Expanded Juliet Pad is only nine.123 [FOOTNOTE: 123 See Section V.B; see also CH2M Hill Deicing Pad Report at p p. 8 - 9.] In addition, the Expanded Juliet Pad would be distant from the departure ends of Runways 22R, 22L, 15R and 33L, any of which could be used during a deicing event, depending on wind and weather and subject to FAA runway selection.124 [FOOTNOTE: 124 See Ishihara Affidavit, 23.] The taxi distance, and thus the taxi time, from the Expanded Juliet Pad to these runway ends would be longer than from the gates. Massport engaged SH&E, a leading aviation management consulting firm, to quantify delay resultin g from the use of Juliet Pad due to increased taxi time and aircraft queuing due to pad capacity limitations.125 [FOOTNOTE: 125 See generally SH&E Report. To simplify the analysis, SH&E did not take into account closures of Expanded Juliet Pad due to runwa y incompatibilities.] SH&E estimated that, based on the current Boston - Logan departure rates, patterns, and fleet mix, deicing all aircraft at the Expanded Juliet Pad would result in total delays of 1,076 to 2,616 aircraft hours and 87,191 to 208,025 passe nger hours annually.126 [FOOTNOTE: 126 See id. at pp. 7, 29.] The total annual indirect cost of such delays would fall between $4.4 million and $10.5 million.127 [FOOTNOTE: 127 See id. at pp. 9, 29.] At air traffic levels projected by the FAA for Boston - Lo gan for 2020, deicing all aircraft at the Expanded Juliet Pad would result in total delays of 1,900 to 5,251 aircraft hours and 152,272 to 415,153 passenger hours annually.128 [FOOTNOTE: 128 See id. at pp. 7, 9, 29.] The annual indirect cost of such delays would be between $7.7 million and $21 million.129 [FOOTNOTE: 129 See id. at p. 9] The total indirect cost of these delays over the next ten years would be between $65 million and $167 million.130 [FOOTNOTE: 130 See id. at p. 10.] Yet EPA did not evaluate delays to aircraft or passengers or their attendant costs in developing the Proposed Rule.131 On average, during the approximately 112 days of deicing at Boston - Logan per year, the Proposed Rule would cause an additional delay for every aircraft deiced of between 10 and 25 minutes. In ten years, this additional delay per aircraft would jump to approximately 16 to 44 minutes. Moreover, during the approximately 27 days per year with moderate deicing conditions, the Proposed Rule would cause additional delay f or every205 aircraft deiced of between 14 and 43 minutes. By the year 2020, this additional delay would balloon to approximately 24 to 78 minutes per deiced aircraft

– far above the 15 - minute delay threshold set by the FAA. Response: See EPA’s comment code C_CDP_CAP response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_O&M - Centralized deicing pad - O&M costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 107 EPA developed annual O&M costs for deicing pads based on the annual O&M costs for t he block - and pump system at a single airport. Block - and - pump is a completely different collection technology and cannot be compared to the costs associated with maintaining deicing pads. Response: See EPA’s comment code C_CDP_CAP response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_CDP_O&M - Centralized deicing pad - O&M costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 109 Approximate annual deicing pad O&M costs available in ACRP Report 14 range from $80,000 to $1.5 million. Response: S ee EPA’s comment code C_CDP_CAP response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_COD_LOAD - Costing metrics based on COD normalized load Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1 - 3 In the Proposed Rule, aircraft deicers are regulated, but pavement deicers beyond the use of urea are not. At CAK, it is possible that pavement deicers may be applied over deicing pads that serve as the collection areas for the existing AFB system. Both ai rcraft deicers and pavement deicers have COD. In the existing AFB system, influent loads are measured in terms of COD and there is not a distinction between COD from aircraft deicers and COD from pavement deicers. To demonstrate compliance with the Propose d Rule, it is unclear if we will need to implement significant additional monitoring to attempt to distinguish COD associated with aircraft deicers from COD associated with pavement deicers. If additional monitoring is required to distinguish COD from pave ment deicers, that would require additional costs not incorporated in the EPA’s economic analysis. Response: After considering the comments and reviewing the information in its record, EPA is not promulgating an ADF collection/treatment requirement for B AT. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, please see the preamble to the final rule.206 Additionally, it is unlikely that a significant amount of pavement deicer would be applied to the deicing pad as the area is frequently sprayed with aircraft deicing flu id which would melt most any snow and/or ice that could build up at the pad. In the event that a limited amount of pavement deicing materials should enter the treatment system, the system should have not experience spikes in effluent as any COD associated with pavement deicers should be equalized prior to treatment. C_DEPART - Costing metrics based on annual departures Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 106 EPA Should Not Normalize Deicing Pad Costs Based on Departures. EPA estimated installed ca pital costs for centralized deicing pads by normalizing pad installation costs from three airports to aircraft departures. EPA then applied that normalized capital cost figure to departure data from the airports that are expected to have to install deicing pads under the Proposed Rule. EPA’s costing analysis bears no rational relationship to real world capital construction costs. First, the number of departures (either annual or deicing seasonal) is in no way solely indicative of the costs associated with i nstalling deicing pads at an airport. The installation of such significant infrastructure will result in greatly varying costs airport - by airport. Costs will rather be dictated by many factors, including the number, size and location of pads; available spa ce; existing infrastructure; integration with other capital projects; etc. Departure data does not provide accurate cost estimations. EPA also normalized deicing pad costs based on aircraft departures for three airports (perceived as small, medium, and lar ge hub airports). However, the airports needing to comply with BAT are generally large hub airports that typically operate larger aircraft. Comparing the implementation cost for smaller airports is not necessarily reflective of the costs facing large hub ( and space constrained) airports. According to EPA data, CAK has only 14,911 departures and uses only 60,246 gallons of ADF per year and is hardly indicative of the costs to be incurred by the large airports with significant ADF usage potentially required t o install deicing pads under the Proposed Rule. EPA claims to have normalized capital costs to deicing season departures. However, the actual departure data in Table 11 - 5 of the TDD is annual departures, not deicing season departures. Therefore, the normal ized capital cost per deicing season departure metric calculated by EPA is too low. EPA then calculates capital costs at other airports by multiplying this falsely low metric of $314.56 (based on annual departures) by deicing season departures at airports expected to be required to install deicing pads. Not only is departure data not indicative of deicing pad installation costs, but EPA mixed inconsistent data (i.e., annual departures to annual departures, or deicing season departures to deicing season depa rtures) in its metric. EPA’s metric is unworkable. We know for a fact that contractors would not base construction bids for a new deicing pad on departure data. Response: See the comment response to (C_CDP_CAP) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. C_DESIGN - Costing data do not reflect specific design elements Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1242 - 3 Each airport layout, design, operation and need is different and the proposed EPA regulations do not seem to appreciate the myriad of individual compliance issues and challenges each airport will face. The cost of de - icing fluid collection can vary widely depending on the number and location of waterways, surface elevations and constraints of space. For these reasons, we believe additional study i s needed before regulation is appropriate in this area.207 Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. EPA used available airport system data to support estimation of costs for the industry, including data collected t hrough site visits and sampling episodes and information collected through the airport detailed questionnaire for which EPA solicited and addressed industry input. EPA acknowledges that actual costs for specific airports may be higher at some airports and lower at others. However, to estimate costs for the entire industry, EPA relied on available data to develop cost equations that could be applied to each model airport. See TDD Section 10.1 for a description of EPA's model airport costing methodology. For example, in the final technical analysis, the tank cost equations are based on a relationship between estimated normalized ADF usage and storage tank volume requirements and capital costs. This relationship was derived from available data from 5 airpo rts and was applied to the estimate of normalized ADF used at each model airport. In this way, EPA developed costs that take into account different situations at different airports without performing detailed site - specific analyses. C_GRV - Glycol recove ry vehicle costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 17 Inconsistent data sets used: Page 44694, Section VII, (I), references that "2006 dollars" were used to express cost estimates (initial capital and operating costs). It is noted later in this d ocument where your estimates deviated from this statement, using average costs from the 2004 - 2005 timeframe (GRV fuel costs). It is referenced that the questionnaire requested three years of deicing application data, and that the EPA would use the average of the three for cost estimates, unless a particular airport's operations changed during that time frame. It is noted later in this document where this guidance was not followed (GRV operational costs). Response: EPA is not establishing uniform requirements in the final rule for ADF collection or treatment for existing sources. For new sources, the final rule does set ADF collection and treatment requirements. However, the technology basis for the new source performance standards does not inclu de the use of GRVs, because the technology that EPA did identify as the basis for NSPS (centralized deicing pads) achieves a greater collection percentage and economically does not present a barrier to entry. Thus, comments on how EPA derived GRV - related costs in the proposal are not relevant to the final rule. C_GRV - Glycol recovery vehicle costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 25 "The EPA projects that 70 of the 218 in - scope airports would incur costs ...". However, since all of the collecti on options proposed by the regulation require "GRV" collection at a minimum, it would stand to reason that all airports that do not apply this method of collection would have to invest in at least one GRV? EQRR understands that this would impact far more t han 70 airports. (Page 44687 of your publication references 53 respondents recorded GRV usage. 218 - 53 = 165). Response: See response to comment (C_GRV_Glycol recovery vehicle costs) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1

– 17.208 C_GRV - Glycol recovery vehicle costs C omment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 62 Concerning the "GRV Capital Cost data (2006$)" In Table 11 - 3, what explanation is given for the range in initial costs for a single "GRV" (a delta of almost $700,000). In 2006, an Elgin "GRV", as referenced in the TDD, would have cost - $325,000 $350,000. Is it possible that the sample airports actually owned and operated more than 1 unit or were other capital costs included in the calculations? Response: See response to comment (C_GRV_Glycol recovery vehicle c osts) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1

– 17. To respond nevertheless, EPA identified that GCV capital costs reported by two airports represented the purchase of two GCVs, not one. Comment number EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 states that capital costs for GCV purcha se provided in EPA 's Airport Deicing Questionnaire for airport IDs 1021 and 1101 represent two GCV units. EPA verified the number of GCV units at airports 1021 and 1101 through general comments provided by each airport in EPA 's Airport Deicing Questionna ire. EPA’s capital cost analysis for GRVs (for the GCV only option) for the final technical analysis included information on GCV costs from three airports not reported in the proposal TDD. Based on this data set, the range of GCV costs reported by industr y is $283,462 to $455,000. Additionally, see the comment response to (C_GRV) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 86. C_GRV - Glycol recovery vehicle costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 70 It also is important to add that the results imply uniformity across the landscape, generating very strange results. For example, SAT is assumed to need 15 GRV units to deal with an annual ADF usage of 12,745 gallons per year, while MHT is projected to need just one GRV unit to deal with 177,307 gal lons of ADF per year; CLT is projected to need 2 GRV units to deal with 143,572 gallons ADF, while GSO is projected to need 12 times more GRV units to deal with less than one half the ADF (24 GRV units; 68,716 gallons ADF). The following graph, for example , illustrates the nearly complete lack of correlation between the number of deicing outfalls and the amount of ADF to be collected at Tier Two airports: [See graph: No. of GRVs vs Amount of ADF gal/yr, pg 91] Correlation Coefficient = - 0.06 Response: See response to comment (C_GRV_Glycol recovery vehicle costs) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1

– 17. C_GRV - Glycol recovery vehicle costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 83 The Metric for GRV Costs Is Arbitrary In developing its cost metric for implementation of GRV collection technology at an airport, EPA assumed that the number of deicing outfalls approximates the size of the deicing area. Thus, according to EPA, the more o utfalls receiving stormwater impacted by aircraft deicing activities the more GRVs that are required. EPA utilized data from six airports in the development of normalized cost of GRV capital costs per deicing outfall. Although EPA does not identify the spe cific airports, it appears that they are MKE, ANC, CVG, SLC, PDX and BUF based on responses to the airport questionnaire. A total of 22 airports provided cost information to EPA related to GRV209 capital costs and 19 airports provided GRV O&M costs. However, no explanation is provided as to why EPA selected these 6 airports. EPA’s approach to developing a cost metric for implementation of GRV collection technology is flawed in many aspects ranging from the initial assumption that the number of GRVs an airport utilizes is related to the number of deicing outfalls to final calculation of estimated technology costs at an airport. These errors are discussed in detail below. The data EPA marshals to support its contention that the number of GRVs utilized by an airpo rt is related to the number of deicing outfalls actually demonstrates the opposite. Those data indicate that the number of GRVs deployed at an airport ranges from one GRV per 2 outfalls to one GRV per 5 outfalls.244 In addition the Record data reflects tha t the ratio of the amount of ADF per outfall at Tier Two airports will range from 609 gallons of ADF at OME (5 “deice” outfalls; estimated to use 3,047 gallons of ADF annually) to 177,307 gallons at MHT (1 “deice” outfall; estimated to use 177,307 gallons of ADF annually).245 Common sense would dictate a far different relative level of GRV deployment at these airports. The chart showing the relationship between the number of deicing outfalls and the amount of ADF to be collected at all Tier Two airports (pr ovided above in Section VI(C)(2)) demonstrates that there is in fact no meaningful correlation between EPA’s estimate of the number of GRVs needed and the amount of fluid to be recovered. Indeed, the number of GRVs utilized at an airport is not related to the number of deicing outfalls and is a function of other variables. For example, in the case where all deicing at a large airport is conducted within a single outfall, multiple GRVs are likely to be required to ensure collection technologies are available during peak deicing periods. Considerations in the purchase of a GRV include peak departure rate, proximity of deicing area to GRV off - loading locations, time associated with GRV collection and discharge (emptying) cycles, predominant weather conditions a nd ramp congestion (i.e., can a GRV safely maneuver within the collection area prior to arrival of other aircraft). MWAA (owner/operator of IAD and DCA), for example, requires contractors to vary the number of GRVs deployed depending on the type of storm e vent. 246 Response: See response to comment (C_GRV_Glycol recovery vehicle costs) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1

– 17. C_GRV - Glycol recovery vehicle costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 84 Second, the use of a per - outfall metric does not ref lect the reality of deicing operations. The rational for using this metric is that “ERG assumed that the number of deicing outfalls would be an approximation of the size of the deicing area; more deicing outfalls would indicate a larger deicing area and in creased costs associated with removal of ADF from that area,” an explanation that EPA recapitulates in the TDD.247 While the total size of the area is a factor, it is not the only factor. As pointed out above, the proximity and operational characteristics of each of the areas comprising the total area will determine GRV deployment. In addition, this is especially true when the object is to achieve a specified level of ADF collection efficiency, which is affected by storm type, time of deicing operations, ti me available between aircraft deicing operations, etc.210 Response: See response to comment (C_GRV_Glycol recovery vehicle costs) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1

– 17. C_GRV - Glycol recovery vehicle costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 85 The cost metric ultimately developed by EPA estimates a capital expenditure of $108,000 per deicing outfall for GRV equipment. 248 [FOOTNOTE:248 As noted in Section VI.B.4.a of these comments, Although EPA stated that a cost of $108,000 per deicing outfall was used to calculate GRV capital costs (TDD at 11 - 15), they actually utilized a cost of $123,165 (Document - 0634) to calculate GRV capital costs. No explanation is provided for this difference.] As pointed out above, EPA failed to consider current purcha se price of a GRV, citing a 1999 report (Document - 0833 ) which also states that the cost of a sweeper and associated equipment is $400,000. Further, utilizing the GRV capital costs provided in the TDD, an average GRV cost of $415,000 can be calculated.249 [FOOTNOTE:249 Note that EPA indicates that only one GRV is in use at PDX, however the calculations appear to indicate that there are 2 GRVs at that airport. The average presented above is based on the assumption that there are 2 GRVs at PDX.] Response: See the responses to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 62. C_GRV - Glycol recovery vehicle costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 86 EPA’s assessment of O&M costs for GRVs is similarly flawed for all of the reasons noted above. The assumption that GRV maintenance cost is related to the number of deicing outfalls does not make sense. While GRV capital costs appears to have a limited variability (ranges from $315,000 to $910,000

– a factor of 3), O&M costs range from $5,200 to $82 ,400 per year

– a factor of nearly 16. Review of data reported in the Airport survey but not utilized by EPA indicate a similar range with a maximum O&M cost of $75,633 per GRV per year reported at BWI (2006$). Maintenance of GRV equipment is a function of weather conditions and hours of use. Airports with limited deicing will have limited O&M costs for GRVs. In fact, the lowest cost O&M is for CVG

– an airport that has indicated that GRVs are used “sometimes”250. In these instances, O&M costs are likely to be lower compared to airports which utilize GRVs as the sole mode of deicing stormwater management. Given that the majority of the airports used in the development of GRV costs generally do not rely solely on GRV collection technology, the O&M costs are u nderestimates. Response: See response to comment (C_GRV_Glycol recovery vehicle costs) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1

– 17. C_GRV - Glycol recovery vehicle costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 87 As explained below, EPA does not provide sufficient basis for demonstrating that GRVs used alone will achieve the required ADF Collection Standard for Tier Two airports (20% of available ADF). The cost metric is arbitrary in that it is based on information from six airports, four of which there is no basis to211 conclude GRVs achieve this standard. In addition, the relationship developed by EPA also is not reflective of collection technology costs actually required to comply with the requirement that “all deic ing activities shall take place in an area where available ADF is actively collected by GRVs.” 251 During deicing periods when the GRV must be taken out of service to empty the tank, the airport would either have to cease deicing operations or maintain bac k - up equipment to ensure collection within the deicing area. Thus, EPA’s cost analysis for implementation of the GRV collection technology at Tier 2 airports is arbitrary and inherently flawed in that it is based on costs from airports for which their abil ity to comply with the proposed rule based solely on GRV collection is not known, assumes that GRVs can be purchased in portions and fails to relate GRV collection requirements to meaningful and relevant metrics. Response: See responses to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1, Comment Excerpt 27. C_GRV - Glycol recovery vehicle costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 27 Airports have indicated that GRV performance is variable and will not meet such standards. When it is particularly snowy or there is ice build - up, as is common in many parts of the country when deicing fluid is being applied, the GRVs are not always working optimally. This leads to the question of whether airports would then be saddled with a burden of having to purchase additional equipment to meet the collection requirements that were not considered by the EPA. If so, there are further cost implications to the airport than just securing a GRV for collection. Even the EPA in section 9.1.1. of the TDD indicated the GRVs limitations, which include: “potential problems with ponding of deicing stormwater during heavy precipitation, added vehicular traffic in congested gate areas, irregular ground surfaces undermining collection effectiveness and slush clogging the collection systems unde r heavy snow conditions”. It is also important to note that the procurement of a GRV is again, not feasible for many airports who may use very minimal fluid on a few occasions. And, the life - span of a GRV must also be considered. In this proposal, the EPA uses a 10 year effective service life. 74 Fed. Reg. at 44702. Many of our members feel as though this is overstated and does not take into account additional infrastructure, storage costs or human capital required for operation. Response: See response to comment (C_GRV_Glycol recovery vehicle costs) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1

– 17. To respond nevertheless, EPA estimates that GCVs typically capture at least 20 percent of the available ADF when properly operated and maintained. See Section 8.2.3 of the T DD. C_GRV - Glycol recovery vehicle costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 67 Additionally, EPA has not accounted for the safety training and security clearance considerations required for any individual permitted to operate equipment or vehicle s on an airport airfield. In order to allow an individual to operate equipment or vehicles on the AOA unescorted, the individual must undergo specific safety training and background security clearances (which may take several days to clear). With such infr equent need for such a service, ensuring one or more employees has met the required training and clearance is burdensome. Additionally, the vehicle/equipment must be equipped with the appropriate lights and signage and meet specific insurance requirements of two to 10 million dollars. Meeting these requirements is onerous and costly, and EPA has not accounted for these costs in the Proposed Rule.212 More importantly, the requirements may inhibit a company from doing business with an airport, particularly for s uch infrequent, “on demand” service. As an alternative, and as would more likely occur, if the individual has not met the training and security requirements, the airport could escort the vehicle while on the AOA. In such situations, an airport employee wou ld be required to continuous escort and monitor the individual and equipment at all times. This option requires staff time and resources, which EPA also has not accounted for in estimating the costs of the Proposed Rule. Response: EPA is no longer requir ing collection of ADF as part of the BAT requirement. Therefore this comment is no longer applicable. Additionally, for new sources, EPA’s barrier to entry analysis is facility - wide and specific detailed costs are not part of this analysis. C_GRV - Glyco l recovery vehicle costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 97 EPA’s Basis for Determining GRV Costs Is Inappropriate. To estimate GRV capital and annual costs for airports subject to the proposed 20 percent collection requirements, EPA relied on cost data reported by six airports. There are a number of inherent problems with EPA’s analysis. First, the data relied upon to determine GRV costs are inconsistent. EPA mistakenly assumed the cost data provided by each airport were reflective of one GRV. However, the capital costs provided by Buffalo reflected two, not one, GRVs. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 62. C_GRV - Glycol recovery vehicle costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 98 EPA ass umed the number of GRVs required was a function of the number of deicing stormwater outfalls. As previously discussed, this assumption has no basis. No connection has been shown between the number of outfalls, the appropriate number of GRVs, and an airport ’s ability to meet the proposed 20 percent collection requirements. Therefore, the number of outfalls does not provide an appropriate basis for determining GRV costs. EPA must develop a more sophisticated cost model and analyses to properly quantify GRV co sts. Response: See response to comment (C_GRV_Glycol recovery vehicle costs) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1

– 17. C_GRV - Glycol recovery vehicle costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 99 The capital and annual cost data relied on for developing normalized average costs were not all reflective of the costs associated with BAT. Because EPA has not identified any airports currently meeting BAT for 20 percent collection through GRVs, EPA has no real world basis for determining the costs associated w ith meeting that BAT standard. The airports relied on for determining GRV costs also rely on other collection technology in addition to GRVs. Simply looking at those airports’ GRV costs will not provide an accurate estimate of the costs associated with mee ting BAT.213 Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1, Comment Excerpt 27. C_GRV - Glycol recovery vehicle costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 100 The annual GRV O&M costs are also not reflective of the actual costs to b e incurred by airports required to meet 20 percent collection requirements. EPA has not assessed whether the airports relied upon to determine annual costs actually meet the collection requirements. In order to determine the O&M costs that may be incurred by an airport required to collect 20 percent of available ADF, EPA must analyze the costs incurred by airports that currently meet the proposed requirements. EPA cannot simply rely on the GRV O&M costs from a few various airports without establishing how i ndicative they are of costs to be realized under the Proposed Rule. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1, Comment Excerpt 27. C_INC - Costing data is inconsistent and incomplete Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - excerpts 27 & 28 The next paragraph references "EPA assumed airports would continuously operate three 40 - horsepower (hp) electric motors during each deicing day." Reviewing the TDD, it is assumed that this is based on conveying the collected material the maximum distance used by the EPA (1,000 linear feet of 12 - inch diameter pipe). (TDD page 11 - 26, 11 - 27, and 11 - 35). The supporting document (DCN AD001166) provides for the calculation of electrical consumption based on SOFP for 22 airports (taken from ques tionnaire results. The result (approx 1.2 to 1.3 million Kilowatts per year), was then reported as the total electrical consumption for the conveyance of collected ADF per year for all in - scope airports? Table VIII - 4 of the publication states that 55 airpo rts would incur costs associated with the proposed rule; however, by this calculation only 22 would have electrical costs associated with conveying ADF. Additionally, what was the assumed gallons per minute (gpm) required by these pumps through a 12 - inch line? Using an industry standard wastewater pump s , and 40 HP (66 BHP), the pump could easily move 1200 to 2200 gpm (1,700 gpm average). The average SOFP referenced within DCN AD001166 is 28.5 days. That would mean each pump per airport could pump and ave rage of average 63,768,000 - gallons per season? (For comparison, the same pipe sloped only 1 - foot over the 1,000 linear foot distance could gravity flow up to 730,000 - gallons per day.10) Response: The final rule does not establish uniform national require ments for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports. Therefore, this comment is not applicable to the final regulation. For new sources, se e the response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. (Barrier - to - Entry analysis for NSPS). In the proposal, EPA assumed airports requiring ADF collection for costing would continuously operate three well - pit pumps with 40 - horsepower (hp) electric motors during each deicing day as part of the 1,000 LF of piping cost. For the final rule, EPA estimate d costs for 10,000 LF of piping and used a 32.7% plumbing factor to account for any pumps that may be needed to move water. See the TDD for more details on these calculations. This capital cost factor was used since EPA does not have the specific airport topography and/or location data required to perform a more detailed analysis related to pumps.214 EPA anticipates that individual airports that have the opportunity to implement gravity flow will do so to avoid the need for force mains. C_INC - Costing data is inconsistent and incomplete Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1225.1 - 3 In addition to the problem of the alternative deicer being less effective in the arctic climate, the EPA cost estimates for using an alternative product are too low by an order of magnitude. For example, the EPA estimate for Barrow airport is $10,571. The airport in Barrow currently uses sand and urea (in the form of pellets), so costs for switching over to a liquid alternative deicer such as E - 36 could exceed S100,000 (including s torage tank, application vehicle, and transport costs to Barrow), in addition to the greater annual expense for the alternate product. Airports in Kotzebue and Nome are currently able to utilize some E - 36 rather than urea because of their somewhat milder t emperatures. However, cost will he high to convert to using only E - 36 due to the requirement to construct heated storage tanks with circulation capability. The substantal difference between urea and the alternative (E - 36) is the former is solid and the lat er is liquid. Where supplies are shipped by barge, there is only a short summer window of time to receive supplies, before the barges are unable to make it through the ice and rough seas. Therefore, the entire winter's supply would need to be shipped the s ummer before. This would necessitate the construction of storage capacity for an entire winter's supply of liquid deicer. Therefore, if EPA is going to promulgate this rule, a long lead time before its effective date will be necessary in order for permitte es to program funds for capital improvements and to construct those improvements. Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that estimated costs for storage and transport of liquid pavement deicers (e.g., potassium acetate) to Alaska are too low by an o rder of magnitude. EPA collected urea and potassium acetate chemical costs from eight airports located throughout the U.S., including two Alaskan airports. EPA evaluated an average price for use in evaluating the impact of airfield chemical substitution and understands that prices for specific airports may vary (where some airports pay less and others more). EPA notes that for the two Alaskan airports providing airfield chemical costs for potassium acetate, the prices quoted were very close to the averag e price used in EPA’s analysis. See DCN AD 01252. In response to comments on the proposed rule regarding storage, application vehicles, and transportation costs, EPA expanded its cost analysis for airfield deicer substitution. As discussed in DCN AD01252 and TDD Section 10.3, EPA evaluated both liquid application equipment costs and storage costs for airports that use solid airfield deicers only and incorporated these additional costs into the final rule economic analysis. For airports that use both soli d and liquid products, EPA estimated no additional application equipment and storage costs since the airport would already have liquid application equipment and storage for liquid product. Transportation costs apply regardless of whether an airport uses a solid or liquid product and EPA did not factor in additional transportation costs to their analysis. EPA’s airport questionnaire identified five Alaskan airports using potassium acetate as an airfield deicer for the years 2002 - 2005, indicating that liqui d deicers are also available for use in Alaska. Additionally, potassium acetate unit costs that EPA collected from the Fairbanks Alaska airport include transportation costs as part of the unit price and the unit price for both of the Alaskan airports that provided data on potassium acetate costs, and these costs were in line with the average unit costs that we used for the analysis. As such, EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that transportation costs for Alaskan airports would greatly increa se with the switch to potassium acetate. Airports further afield would still have to ship in their airfield deicer whether it was a solid or a liquid. Barrow was not in the scope of the rule, based on their 2006 jet departures (>900 departures, but <1,00 0), so depending on whether they have215 increased jet operations, they would not even be impacted by the urea ban and the same would be true for other small Alaskan airports. Moreover, for those model airports that would have no existing liquid storage, EPA evaluated storage tank sizes that were sufficient to store a season’s worth of chemical for those model airports converting from a solid to liquid deicer. The tank costs we re based on modular tanks, and EPA did not include costs for heating those tanks as the Agency did not see heated storage tanks in our site visits. Additionally, EPA assumes that a modular tank with a 50,000 - gallon storage capacity will be the best option for airports that use between 1,000 and 50,000 gallons of liquid airfield deicing chemical each deicing season and EPA costed model airports for additional storage. For the final rule, EPA also added equipment costs for liquid application of airfield dei cing chemicals for those model airports currently using only solid deicers. EPA collected airfield deicing chemical use information for ten Alaskan airports including the airports located in Barrow, Kotzebue, and Nome (however, these three airports were no t part of the statistical sampling). Based on EPA’s data, Barrow airport is not in the scope of the final rule, since the number of jet departures fell below the in - scope minimum cut - off. The airport located in Kotzebue identified use of urea and potassi um acetate for airfield deicing and the airport located in Nome identified use of potassium acetate and no use of urea. Of the six in - scope Alaskan airports for which EPA had airfield chemical usage data, four identified use of potassium acetate either alo ne or in combination with urea use and two airports identified use of urea only. Based on this information alone, the Alaskan airport data indicate that potassium acetate is feasible for airports located in the state. Finally, EPA is not requiring the use of a liquid deicer. EPA used potassium acetate as the basis for costing the product substitution, in part due to the widespread use of that particular chemical and because it is generally considered a technically feasible option for airfield deicing. Ho wever, an airport may elect to use any urea - free pavement deicer it deems appropriate. In the instance described by the commenter, it is likely that use of an alternative solid deicer would be more appropriate than a liquid. C_INC - Costing data is incons istent and incomplete Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 5 We believe that the EPA’s assumption on costs and logistics ignores the realities that airports that occasionally deice aircraft primarily to remove frost would experience a disproportional burden if subject to the rule. Response: See comment code MIN_US E_CUTOFF comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1221.1, Excerpt number 6. C_INC - Costing data is inconsistent and incomplete Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 21 The EPA relies on several surveys as its source of data for the rulemaking. The EP A admits the limitations of the data but then disregards such limits when setting the criteria of the proposed rule. There are numerous concerns when looking at background data that many averages were derived from within this proposed rule. In many cases t hese data points are outdated and inaccurate. The general impression is the proposal underestimates the costs of compliance while overestimating the environmental benefits. Obviously, if the basis of the calculations are inaccurate the end result is advers ely affected as well. For216 instance, in the TDD the EPA uses both gallon and pound amounts to calculate aircraft and airfield deicing usage (see e.g. Table 10 - 1. Three - Year Average Amount of Pavement Deicing Chemical Usage, in Pounds and Table 10 - 4. ADF Ann ual Usage Estimates for All Airports that Received the Airport Questionnaire). On many occasions airports were not able to verify the figures because the particular type of data, such as urea, is not utilized at the airport in that form, some ADFs are used in granular form, and others are applied in liquid form. In order for an airport to prepare for the cost this rule may impose, calculations have been unsuccessfully attempted by airports. They cannot determine how much of an impact this will have to them in the future when they cannot determine what the EPA estimates their current costs are today. The EPA must clarify these data shortcomings. Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that converting pavement deicer usage from gallons to pounds renders E PA estimates inaccurate. In the questionnaire, airports reported pounds or gallons of pavement deicing chemical used along with the concentration of the chemical. EPA calculated the amount of applied chemical by multiplying the reported mass of each chemic al by the reported concentration. If airport personnel reported a volume of chemical in the airport questionnaire, EPA multiplied the reported volume by the reported concentration and the chemical density. ADF usage did not require unit conversion. See sec tion 9.3 of the TDD. EPA disagrees that the data collected on airport deicing are outdated. The effluent guideline process requires multiple years to conduct due to the requirements associated with data collection and public comment. Therefore, EPA devel ops a base year for their analysis which will generally be determined by the timeframe in which the bulk of the technical and economic data and cost information is collected. EPA then uses this base year to compare loading impacts, costs, and economic imp acts. This was done for the airport deicing rule. It is common industry practice to use construction cost indices (or other appropriate price indices) to evaluate economic impacts in a different year and EPA has evaluated the economic impacts from this ru le by inflating the baseline costs to the appropriate year values. C_INC - Costing data is inconsistent and incomplete Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 42 The EPA has indicated that there are several things that distinguish the aviation indust ry from a for - profit industry, but we do not feel that the $91.3 million annual cost is correct nor has it taken the individuality of varying airports into consideration. According to one expert who handles effluent guidelines for other industries, the cos ts associated with collecting effluent always has escalated past estimates, and further federal investment was critical in completing their compliance. The aviation industry simply cannot afford the EPA to be inaccurate on many of these estimates. Respons e: The final rule does not establish uniform national requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports. The cost estimates from the proposal that are referenced in this comment are not relevant to the final rule. Otherwise, EPA disagrees with the commenter's statements. EPA used airport specific data, from airports of various sizes and locations, to represent model airport conditions for assessing costs and pollutant reductions for the development of the rule.217 C_INC - Costing dat a is inconsistent and incomplete Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 28 Page 44704, Section VIII. E. Option 4 was rejected because more than 25% of in - scope airports are expected to incur costs exceeding 3% of operating revenue. EPA seems to assume that no cost for compliance related to ADF discharges would apply if the airport does not fall under the ELG. Extending the ELG to smaller airports that deice would actually lessen the potential compliance costs. Any airport conducting deicing operations with discharges to waters of the U.S. needs to obtain a permit for these discharges, regardless of the amount of ADF used. If the facility is not under the ELG, then the permitting state would require some other level of control that is not defined by this proposed effluent limitation guideline. Therefore EPA failed to account for the costs of not implementing the ELG when eliminating proposed options. Response: See response to comment code C INC EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1

– 42. EPA agrees that if an air port does not fall within the scope of this ELG, then the permit writer will develop technology - based permit limits on a BPJ, site - specific basis. C_INC - Costing data is inconsistent and incomplete Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 108 EPA confu ses the one airport for which deicing pad O&M costs are available. The TDD states that the available data is from Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International Airport (MKE). In fact, the cost data is from Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport (MSP).78 F or unknown reasons, the O&M costs are normalized by number of outfalls. MSP actually has 5 outfalls, not 3 as indicated in the TDD. This error, again, results in an underestimate of the normalized cost per departure. In addition, EPA does not then multiply by the number of outfalls when determining deicing pad O&M costs at other airports. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform national requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports. Additionally, the calculations referenc ed are no longer pertinant to the final rule. Therefore, this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For new sources, se e the response to EPA HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1, Comment Excerpt 9. (EPA did a BTE analysis for NSPS, no detailed costs) C_INC - Costing data is inconsistent and incomplete Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 15 In the Proposed Rule, EPA is proposing certification of non - urea based pavement deicers because it ensures compliance while minimizing compliance cost. SLC currently uses urea for pavement and runway deicing, a switch to potassium acetate, sodium acetate, or other non - urea based pavement deicer will cost SLC an additional $1,000,000 annually. On a heavy snow year the difference in cost will likely surpass $2,000,000. EPA has not adequately accounted for this additional significant cost increase which would have to be passed on to the airlines, which are already struggling financially. Response: As detailed in the final rule preamble Section VI.B.1, EPA based its airfi eld pavement deicing requirement on product substitution. EPA calculated the cost for facilities to substitute the urea used for deicing with potassium acetate. These incremental costs include capital costs associated with application218 equipment and storag e, as appropriate, as well as the differential chemical costs. EPA assumed that those airports that currently do not use urea for pavement deicing would experience no cost associated with this portion of the final regulation. Using the reported urea usag e in the airport questionnaire, EPA estimated the airfield area that was annually deiced at each model facility. EPA was able to calculate the cost per model facility to perform airfield deicing with potassium acetate by using the estimated model facility airfield area in conjunction with the estimated $2.92 per 1,000 ft2 cost of potassium acetate. See section 10.3 of the TDD (EPA 821 - R - 12 - 005) and section VII.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional details on the cost estimate for airfield de icing product substitution. This approach used existing data gathered by other airports using non - urea based deicers to estimate costs for airports that use urea to switch. EPA’s annualized costs for urea substitution (in $2006) ranged from $2,848 to $65 7,442 for the model airports evaluated by EPA. These costs assume that some of the model airports will be required to purchase both additional liquid product application equipment and liquid storage tanks in addition to increased chemical costs. EPA’s ec onomic analysis summarized in section 5.9 of EPA’s Economic Analysis document (EPA 821 - R - 12 - 004) shows that application of the urea substitution requirements (Option 3) are economically achievable for the industry with only 0.5 percent of in - scope airports projected to have compliance costs greater than 3 percent of operating revenue. Additionally, the commenter provided no basis for their estimates by which EPA could evaluate and potentially modify the existing costing calculations. C_INC - Costing data i s inconsistent and incomplete Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 20 Due to the significant financial investment required to meet the Proposed Rule, the operational and potential safety impacts, and the questionable environmental benefit that will result, SLC recommends EPA perform an Environmental Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis before issuing a final rule. The additional analysis will allow a more accurate estimate of loads and potential load reductions. It will also provide a more accurate e stimate of compliance costs and document that the benefits of the proposed rule are commensurate with its cost. Response: While EPA is not required under the CWA to conduct a cost benefit analysis to establish BAT or BADCT effluent limitations guidelines, see e.g., EPA v. National Crushed Stone Ass'n , 449 U.S. 64 (1980), EPA, as a matter of policy, has looked at the costs and benefits of the rule. EPA estimates the final rule will cost approximately $3.5 million annually across the industry. EPA also per formed an analysis of environmental benefits associated with today’s regulation as discussed in the Environmental Impact and Benefit Assessment and in the preamble to the final rule. Based on the statutory factors discussed in the preamble, EPA thinks tha t the requirements of the final rule appropriately reflect the BAT and BADCT level of control. C_OTH_TECH_DATA - Other technology cost data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1202.1 - excerpts 5 - 10 Operation of a Radiant I/R System at a major US airport during the 2008/09 winter season resulted in the application of only 17,373 gallons of pre - mixed Type I deicing fluid on aircraft types ranging from the very large Boeing 777 down to small executive j ets. Given the weather conditions, RAS conservatively estimates that deicing those same aircraft using the conventional fluid method would have required approximately 105,000 gallons of similar product. This is consistent with our experience in prior seaso ns219 where similar annual reductions of approximately 80% were achieved. It should be noted that industry IR deicing procedures state that zero Type I deicing fluid is required for frost removal, or when the air temperature is above 32F. The following table provides a seasonal average comparison of pre - mixed Type I deicing fluid usage in a Radiant Deicing System versus estimated usage if those aircraft had been deiced conventionally. [See table: Comparison of ADF usage with infrared vs conventional deicing, p age 6] Note Type I fluid volumes in gallons. Reduced Utilities. The following table provides a summary of gas and electricity usage for one hour of operation at deicing (full power) levels. [See table: Gas and electricity usage for 1 hr infrared deicing, page 6 ] Note: Energy consumption rates vary between the full power settings shown above for frost/snow/ice removal and the remainder of the process which is conducted at ~50% power levels. These data are only guiding values; local facility requirements r equire an individual consideration. Reduced Emissions. The following table provides a summary of natural gas carbon emissions per aircraft deiced under varying use conditions. RAS asserts that these values compare very favorably against the fully loaded ca rbon footprint of traditional deicing methods. [See table: Natural gas carbon emissions for infrared deicing, page 7] Note: These data are only guiding values; local facility requirements requi re an individual consideration. Capital Costs. Based upon pub lished industry data on the cost of deice pads, a Radiant I/R system can be installed for approximately 50% of the capital cost of a comparably sized deice bay. The EPA should consider the full costs associated with a CDP, fluid collection and retention sy stem when comparing to an IR system. Additionally, the I/R system will be more productive than a deice bay and the I/R facility itself can be utilized for other airport activities during non - winter months, such as aircraft maintenance, aircraft cleaning an d VIP events. The following table provides a basic cost summary as of February 2010. [See table: Basic infrared cost summary February 2010, page 8] The building of a Radiant I/R Facility involves the construction of a basic structure, with the additional i nstallation of the specific infrared components and technologies - it should be regarded by the purchasing entity as being similar to any other airport capital project (such as installing a deice pad or waste water collection system). Radiant supplies its design expertise and coordinates with the construction of the facility, with the availability of the components available to all US airports within normal industry lead times. There is a compelling case that an IR system should have BAT status within this legislation. Technology Operating Cost Example The following is an example, based on in - service performance data, of an operational scenario to demonstrate the cost and aircraft production capabilities using a single bay Radiant deicing system. Radiant has used conservative numbers for consumables & labor on a Boeing 737 sized aircraft capable operation. [ See table: Operational cost scenario for one infrared system , page 9] System Life and Maintenance The base structure of the facility is built to local cod es and standards, and has an expected life of greater than twenty years and typically requires very little maintenance. The infrared equipment and controls are all constructed according to guidelines typical for commercially available gas and control equip ment. The service life of the major infrared components is at least fifteen years, with some individual components having a service history of more than twenty years. Based on the in - service experience of Radiant’s de ice facilities, monitored over a ten y ear period, the IR system requires minimal scheduled maintenance and very minor repair/replacement activity. Hardware - Scheduled maintenance consists primarily of an annual pre - winter season check which can be completed in as little as 2 man days. Repair/ replacements are few and far between because the system has few moving parts. Software

– The system computer has a standard Microsoft Operating platform and commercially available control software that is commonly supported. Siting/Sizing Requirements. The land siting rules are the same for IR facilities and conventional deice bays in that ATC tower line of sight and FAA Part 77 regulations applies equally to both. However, while environmental mitigation efficiency can be improved at conventional facilit ies by having an all eggs - in one - basket approach of multiple deicing bays, the dramatically reduced environmental footprint of220 Radiant Deicing Systems allows them to be located at multiple sites in order to provide operational flexibility to competing airl ines. [See figure and table: Minimum facility distance from runway, page10] The space requirements for an individual system are very similar to those of a single bay of a central pad facility and the number of aircraft that can be de - iced in a single I/R s ystem is the same or higher than a comparable single bay of a central pad facility. A Radiant I/R facility can deice aircraft ranging in size from the very largest commercial and military types down to small private aircraft. Typically, the size of the uni t is custom designed to the airport’s specifications, to capture the highest percentage of aircraft expected to utilize it. The infrastructure requirements for this technology are the same as for any typical airside planning and construction project, and a re completely familiar to airports and aviation engineering companies. An individual Radiant Deicing System is similar in size to a one - aircraft deicing bay, yet it much more efficient use of airport land due to its aircraft throughput performance. As re quested, we have provided detailed performance data below. The following graphs represent the in - service operational performance of Radiant’s IR deicing activities between 2000 and 2009. This data, taken from two major US airports, demonstrates the effecti veness and consistency of the Radiant’s deicing operations and IR equipment. [See 8 graphs: Infrared system deicing time performance for various sized aircraft, pages 11 - 15] [Regional jet sized aircraft] 85% of aircraft de - iced in less than 11 minutes (Sam ple Size

– 570) [Regional jet sized aircraft] 90% of aircraft anti - iced inlessthan7minutes [Boeing 737] 90% of aircraft deiced in less than 14 minutes (Sample Size

– 619) [Boeing 737] 90% of aircraft anti - iced in less than 7 minutes [Boeing 757] 85% of air craft deiced in less than 15 minutes (Sample Size

– 122) [Boeing 757] 85% of aircraft anti - iced in less than 10 minutes [Boeing 777] 88% of aircraft deiced in less than 23 minutes (Sample Size

– 15) [Boeing 777] 85% of aircraft anti - iced in less than 20 mi nutes. Response: EPA thanks the commenter for the infrared technology information. EPA encourages pollution prevention to safely reduce ADF application and associated discharges. The final rule allows NSPS collection requirements to be met with pollution prevention. Additionally, the NSPS barrier to entry analysis was done with facility wide costs, and did not take the costs of particular components into account. See DCN AD01260 (NSPS Barrier to Entry memo) for more details. Additionally, IR wa s not selected as the basis for BAT or NSPS because to date it has not been demonstrated as available to support all deicing at an airport. Additionally, the siting issues associated with deicing pads (see preamble for discussion on why the final rule B AT does set uniform nation standards for ADF collection or treatment and is not based on pads) are present with IR, as the size requirements of an infrared deicing tent are similar to those of a CDP, however, the IR tent also extends vertically potentially limiting lines of sight which is less of an issue with Deicing Pads, making IR Tents more difficult to site at an airport than pads. Finally, EPA has provided a Pollution Prevention Credit in the final regulation, which will allow for an airport using an IR tent the ability to take credit for the ADF reductions that result from this technology. C_OTH_TECH_DATA - Other technology cost data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 69 TDD Page 11 - 18 presents in summary: "For this equation, the estimated percent glycol in the collected stormwater is expected to vary depending on the collection technology used. For example, if GRVs are used to collect 2 percent of applied ADF, the percent glycol in the collected stormwater is expected to be approximately 1.5 percent (1). If plug and pump with GRVs is used to collect ADF - contaminated storm221 water, the glycol percentage is expected to be 3 percent (Switzenbaum, et al., 1999), and if deicing p ads are used to collect ADF, the percentage is expected to be approximately 5 percent. " First, is the reference to 2 percent in error (should it have read 20%)? And, as presented above, the concentrations of ADF associated with each method are inaccurate. This will have an impact on the incremental POTW cost calculation. The estimated cost per gallon (dilute or per gallon active ingredient?) presented on page 11 - 19 is based on one airport's data. This cost would be impacted by the average concentration of the ADF, the distance from the recycle operation, the volume and frequency of deliveries, percent solids and other contaminants, and other services linked to the transport (temporary storage, pumping capabilities on transporters, etc.). Your cost assumptio n of $4.88/gallon assumes that all these conditions are equal at every airport. You reference that 5 of 13 collect less than 60% of the applied ADF. Would all five of the 13 airports (performing off - site recycle) identified have to change there collection methods to meet the 60% available ADF? (Our knowledge of the industry would have us believe that some of these airports would fall into the 20% collection category). Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or t reatment for existing airports. However, the commenter is correct, the text should have read, "if GRVs are used to collect 20 percent of...". C_OTH_TECH_DATA - Other technology cost data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 71 TDD Page 11 - 20 makes reference to the installed and O&M costs estimates for a UF/RO system, (DCN AD00897). As commented previously, the OF and RO technology applied by this firm is very specialized, and does not represent the typical systems used to treat ADF at airports. EQR R has been operating UF/RO technologies on dilute ADF for recovery at PIT since 2000, SLC since 2001, and at our Romulus, MI facility since 2006. The small (they quoted less than 20,000 gallons per day) system in the traditional UF/RO configuration would c osts approx. half the quoted costs. In addition, when asked to include the cost for a storage tank, they added the cost of a 3 - million gallon feed tank (which equaled the total volume to be processed). It would depend on a number of factors (weather, expec ted concentrations, etc.) but a 500k - gallon to 1.1 M - gallon storage tank would probably suffice, reducing this initial cost up to $2M. As presented previously, the expected concentrations from collection techniques referenced in Table 11 - 7 are inaccurate. The UF/RO system would be able to manage the dilute volumes, regardless of what collection systems was employed, which would require that the collection methods segregate collected fluids based on concentration levels. Since the New Logic system is very sp ecialized, their O&M costs are also higher than expected (as referenced earlier, they appear to require a 75 degree C feed temp, which would result in consider costs on 3M - gallons (from 45 degree F to 167 degree F = 300M BTUs)). By comparison, a traditiona l system requires a 70 degree F feed temp (45 degree F to 70 degree F = 62.5M BTUs.) Add in the O&M cost for the oversized storage tank and the "flow - normalized O&M costs" are quite inflated. On page 11 - 21, the reference to installation costs for the two M VR/Distillation systems (including storage) states that one system (airport 2) was designed for 10 - million gallons per year, but did not state what they process through the system per year. The other (airport 1) does not state what the design capacity of t he system is; only that they process 3.3. - million gallons per year (yet you refer to it as design flow)? Was the 10M gallon unit designed for 1%, 10%, or 20% ADF feed concentrations? Is the 3.3M - gallon system feed by a 10M - gallons of storage? Since the est imates include collection piping (per page 11 - 22) is the system next to the collection system or two - miles away from the point of application? All of these items can skew the "Flow Normalized Capital Cost $/gal" shown in Table 11 - 9. Similar questions would need to be answered as it relates to the O&M costs used by the EPA. Is the $0.05/gallon referenced on page 11 - 22, based on one of the systems referenced in Table 11 - 9?222 Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection o r treatment for exisiting airports, therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. C_OTH_TECH_DATA - Other technology cost data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 16 We have identified the following serious shortcomings in EPA’s cost evaluation methodologies: 1 EPA failed (in most cases) to separate costs of the subject airport’s collection system from the treatment system, thereby substantially overpricing the cost of MVR/Distillation technology. The recycling technology can be chosen independently of the collection infrastructure and therefore collection infrastructure costs are not relevant. 2 EPA failed to recognize that distillation is typically conducted offsite because it is rarely cost - effective with currently available technology to build this equipment on the airport. Therefore the relevant analysis for most airports would include costs for MVR and not for distillation. 3 EPA failed to recognize that the most cost - effective option for MVR recycling is not purchase of the equipment by the airport, but rather, contracting to experts for these services. 4 EPA failed to provide cost data that allows for meaningful comparison between AFB and MVR. Presenting the AFB results in Load - Normalized Capital Costs and presenting MVR results in Flow Normalized Capital Costs makes cost comparisons difficult and obscures that fact that using the EPA’s own data, MVR is significantly less expensive than AFB. 5 EPA’s choice to use design capacity as the volume metric is less relevant than using metrics based on actual contaminants removed. 6 EPA extrapolated results from a very small number of cases which had large deviations from the mean. The numbers from each case being so differ ent as to render the average meaningless for predicting costs at other airports. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 71. C_OTH_TECH_DATA - Other technology cost data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 18 Description of Cost Analysis. Our analysis consisted of the following steps: 1. Reviewed capital costs used by the EPA to determine if collection system costs were included in with recycling system costs, and if so, strip them out. EPA’s data for faci lities at DEN, CVG, ALB, and CAK were analyzed to separate the cost of collection from that of treatment. Denver International Airport EPA Cost Basis = $20.3 m Adjusted Cost Basis = $20.3 m The origin of the capital cost attributed to DEN by the EPA in Tab le 11 - 9 (p. 11 - 22) as published in the Technical Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (TDD) appears to be a memo from Keith Pass (DIA) to Mary Willett (ERG, consultant to the EPA), dated 7/12/2007 in which Mr. Pass indicates the cost of the recycling facility was $14,615,200 when built in 1993. He also indicates a fifth storage tank was added to the facility in 2003/4 at a cost of $750,000. EPA inflation adjusted the original costs t o 2006 dollars using the calculator on the Bank of Canada website. Applying the inflation adjustment the original facility cost plus the cost of the fifth tank results in a 2006 dollar cost of $19,340,460. This leaves an unexplained difference from the fig ure in Table 11 - 9 of $974,540. However, it would appear that the cost used by the EPA did not include significant collection infrastructure costs. Cincinnati / Northern Kentucky International Airport EPA Cost Basis = $19.4 m Adjusted Cost Basis = $7.5 m Th e origin of the capital cost attributed to CVG by EPA in Table 11 - 9 (p. 11 - 22) in the TDD is a memo from Don Chapman (CVG) to Mary Willett (ERG, consultant to the EPA), dated 5/4/2007 in which Mr. Chapman provides a breakdown of the $19,421,000 cost of the spent glycol collection and processing system. EPA uses this full cost in their analysis. However, in his breakdown, Mr. Chapman attributes $6,835,000 to223 “Glycol Processing & Recycling” while the remainder includes $1,938,000 for design and $10,648,000 fo r tanks, collection piping and structures, pumps, electrical, and controls. Applying the design costs to collection and treatment on a prorated basis, gives a total cost of glycol treatment of $7,528,989. It does not appear that these costs have been adjus ted to 2006 dollars (unless they were already adjusted by Mr. Chapman). Albany International Airport EPA Cost Basis = $8.1 m Adjusted Cost Basis = $3.9 m The source for the capital cost attributed to ALB in Table 11 - 10 (p. 1123) in the TDD is explained in a memo dated 20 February 2007, from Cortney Itle and Robyn Reid of ERG to the Airport Deicing Administrative Record as having been provided verbally by Mark Sobel of ALB. The costs provided were inflation adjusted from 1999 dollars to 2006 dollars to $8,10 0,000. The EPA Docket contains a spreadsheet titled “Albany Airport Propylene Glycol/Stormwater Management Cumulative Total Costs to Date”. This spreadsheet contains a number of line item expenditures from the period 1991 - 1998. It is impossible to ascertai n exactly which line items pertain to the collection system versus the treatment system (or if some expenses pertain to neither), however there is a line item “GACFBR Treatment Plant” which has a original cost of $3,281,000 in 1998. Taking the stated cost of $8,100,000 back to original 1999 dollars suggests an original cost of $6,636,330. We were unable to find any combination of line items on this spreadsheet that add up to this number. Therefore, for purposes of comparison, we have taken the conservative approach of inflation adjusting the costs of the GACFBR treatment plant to $3,904,247. Akron

– Canton Airport EPA Cost Basis = $6.0 m Adjusted Cost Basis = $3.1 m The source for the capital cost attributed to CAK in Table 11 - 10 (pg 11 - 23) in the TTD is a m emo from Rick McQueen (CAK) to Mary Willett (ERG, consultant to the EPA), dated 5/3/2007 in which Mr. McQueen provides a breakdown of the $11,090,000 cost of CAK Deicer Management System. In this breakdown, Mr. McQueen identifies $5,100,000 as costs attrib utable to the North Deicing Pad and the South Deicing Pad. The EPA deducts this amount to arrive at the capital cost used in their calculations of $5,990,000. However, included in the $5,990,000 is $2,890,000 for Storage Tanks, which are properly attributa ble to the collection system. The remainder of $3,100,000 is the cost of the Treatment Plant and Building. Because the expenditures were in 2006, no inflation adjustment is required. 2. Recalculate normalized capital costs putting AFB and MVR/Distillation on the same basis so they can be easily compared. Replace design capacity as the volume metric with more relevant real - world measurements. The EPA report uses different volume metrics in Table 11 - 9 (MVR/Distillation) than it uses in Table 11 - 10 (AFB), maki ng direct comparison of costs impossible. Moreover, the volume metric, while different in both cases, is based on design parameters. Basing the volume on design parameters assumes that these parameters are a good match for volumes actually experienced. Thi s may not be the case, so it is more relevant to calculate relative costs based on the amount of actual contaminant captured and eliminated. The table below summarizes the calculation of unit costs using two measures of actual contaminants. The first uses the amount of ADF actually sprayed as the volume metric, while the second uses the amount of COD load processed. Both the ADF sprayed and the COD load data have been taken directly from the TDD. [SEE SUBMITTAL FOR Table 3. Comparison of estimates of unit c apital costs based on ADF sprayed and COD load.] Volume Metric Treatment System ADF Sprayed Costs as per EPA Cost Only Denver $ 19.47 $ 19.47 Capital Costs $/gal Cincinnati $ 27.13 $10.52 Average $ 23.30 $ 15.00 Flow Normalized Albany $ 64.40 $ 31.04 Akron $ 99.43 $51.46 Average $ 81.92 $ 41.25 COD Load Denver $ 1.97 $ 1.97 COD Load Normalized Capital Cincinnati $ 3.53 $1.37 Costs $/lb Average $ 2.75 $ 1.67 Albany $ 6.41 $ 3.09 Akron $ 15.61 $8.08 Average $ 11.01 $ 5.59 The data in this table illustrate a c ouple of important points: • The differences in unit costs between DEN and CVG become significantly less when using actual ADF sprayed or COD loads than when using design parameters. The spread between unit costs when using design parameters was so large ( Denver was 3.2X) that it was useless for estimating costs at other airports. • The capital cost of AFB is between 2.75 and 4.0 times more expensive than MVR/Distillation (depending on which metric used and whether capital cost included collection system). 3. Recalculate normalized annual costs putting AFB and MVR/Distillation on the same basis so they can be easily compared. Using formulas developed by the EPA, calculate the annual costs for DEN and CVG using; 1) the MVR formula; 2) the AFB formula. The EPA report presents annual operating and maintenance costs for an MVR/Distillation differently than it does for an AFB system, making it difficult224 to readily compare costs between the two alternatives. In both cases, EPA devised the following formulas it uses to estimate O&M costs: MVR/Distillation: Annual influent volume (usg) * $0.05 AFB: ADF Sprayed Annually * 14.38 lbs COD * Collection System Capture % * 1/194 days per season * $77.72 Applying these formulas to DEN and CVG, it becomes evident that an AFB s ystem is substantially more expensive to operate than an MVR/Distillation system. Table 4. Comparison of estimated annual O&M costs for MVR/Distillation and AFB at DEN and CVG. In conclusion, we believe there are serious problems with the accuracy and thor oughness of EPA’s analysis of costs of alternative treatment technologies. The analysis presented above clearly demonstrates that both the capital and the O&M costs for the MVR/distillation technology are significantly less expensive than for EPA’s propose d model treatment technology. This conclusion remains the same, even when the inaccuracies and uncertainties in the data are taken into consideration. We recommend that EPA reevaluate the costs of all potential treatment alternatives using accurate and con temporary data, and addressing the noted methodological deficiencies. Only after such a revised analysis is complete will EPA be in a position to accurately and realistically compare the costs of alternative onsite treatment technologies. Response: See t he comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 71. C_OTH_TECH_DATA - Other technology cost data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 46 Page 11 - 1, Section 11.1. EPA presents three scenarios for estimating costs of ELG implementat ion. All three scenarios include anaerobic fluidized bed treatment. It is assumed that the AFB treatment would be for the total volume of wastewater collected. However, it may be more cost effective for an airport to employ a combination of disposal option s including AFB treatment and direct discharge, pretreatment and discharge to POTW, recycling and recovery, direct discharge to POTW, and off - site disposal. Has EPA evaluated the costs associated with multiple disposal options? Response: The final rule d oes not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports, therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. However, in general for ELGs, EPA sets effluent limits based on the identified BAT technology and the costs of that technology, but permittees are free to use other technologies or combinations of technologies that they believe to be more cost effective, as long as they still meet the permit limit. C_PIPING - Piping costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 72 Assuming that the Holding Tanks and Transfer Piping of section 11.3.2.3 of page 11 - 26 relate to "deice pads" (since the process descriptions for "GRV" and "Plug and Pump" discuss truck transport to treatment sites), the EPA may have under - estimated the linear feet of pipe and material of construction for the transfer piping. Since the EPA assumed that the deice pad would be located at a central location, or adjacent to the end of the taxiways (end of runways), and since most airports tend to locate their tanks "land - side" or just adjacent to the air - side perimeter fence, these distances would be greater than 1,000 linear feet. Even just two end of runway deice pads (same runway) sharing a common storage facility would have to have at least 9,000, 10,000, or more linear feet of inter - connective piping (length of runway). Consider a hypothetical central location, just off of the terminal ramp area. The piping would not be directed back towards the terminal (there is no room for a tank). Most Airports would not place225 there tank and treatment plant adjacent to the terminal, that limits expansion, etc. Going the opposite direction (across the airport) would probably require passing under the parallel taxiway and the runway. Consideri ng the required spacing between the deice pad (stationary objects), the taxiway and runway, and then the spacing between the runway and the tank, you would also be well beyond 1,000 linear feet. Lastly, since these estimates include pump stations, it is as sumed that this is a force main design. Most airports would not use concrete pipe for a force main, but more like ductile iron or HDPE. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airp orts. Therefore this comment is not applicable. However, see the response to EPA - HQ OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 91. Some airports may use iron or HDPE piping, although pre - stressed concrete cylinder piping is commonly used with force mains. Wh ile the exact type of piping used at each airport will be specific to the conditions at that airport, EPA developed a general estimate that could be applied to all airports for purposes of considering the costs and barrier to entry analysis for the final r ule. C_PIPING - Piping costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 91 The “Metric” for Piping Costs Is Arbitrary EPA assumes a uniform $502,000 cost (calculated cost of 1,000 yards of piping) for all airports.257 This is a gross simplification, whic h leads to a gross underestimation of actual capital costs for piping. This is based on the assumption that just 1000 feet of piping would be required any airport. This underestimates real costs for piping by a wide margin

– for example, construction of tr eatment facilities at PDX (an AFBR) will require 12,705 linear feet of piping and 4 pump stations, at an estimated cost of $1,067,733 per 1000 feet of piping.258 Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treat ment of ADF at existing airports . Therefore this comment is not applicable. However, based on comments received on the proposed rule, EPA increased its estimate of the amount of piping needed for each airport, from 1,000 linear feet to 10,000 linear feet . Although the exact amount of piping required at each airport will be specific to the conditions at that airport, EPA used available data to develop a general cost estimate that could be applied to all airports. For more information about the methodology, see Section 10.2.2.2 of the TDD and the July 2010 memorandum entitled Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for Additional Stormwater Piping. C_PIPING - Piping costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 40 There are many airports that lack existing stora ge systems for ADF runoff, and current pipe capacity would not be adequate. In Table 11 - 13 of the TDD, the EPA estimates the cost for 1,000 linear feet of stormwater piping. According to feedback from AAAE members, many times this is not adequate, one airp ort stating they would need as much as 6 miles of piping. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 91.226 C_PIPING - Piping costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 77 EPA estimated the capital cost factor o f $502,366 for 1,000 linear feet of piping for storm water conveyance to the storage.166 EPA developed a cost factor as a constant value for each airport, which is indicative of the difficulty, if not impracticality, of predicting such a factor, because it would be specific to each airport. The piping capital cost would vary significantly from airport to airport depending on various factors such as land availability, piping length, pump size, existing piping infrastructure, type of storage, water table heig ht, location and number of utilities, and location of ramps/taxiways. A more practical approach in estimating the piping capital costs may be the development of a variable cost factor in terms of dollars per feet ($/ft), which would provide a cost estimate depending on the length of piping needed at an airport. EPA’s cost analysis for the Proposed Rule as included in the Airport Deicing Costing Database used the constant piping capital cost factor and therefore failed to capture the real cost that would be incurred depending upon the abovementioned parameters. The Port Authority estimated the piping capital cost for JFK, EWR, and LGA at approximately $13.9 million, $6.2 million, and $6.4 million, respectively, or nearly 1,700 percent more expensive a total c ost than the EPA’s estimate of approximately $0.5 million for each airport. The magnitude of the difference between the Port Authority and EPA’s estimate exhibits the shortcoming of EPA’s cost model (i.e., Airport Deicing Costing Database). Furthermore, th e capital cost estimates for different elements of the new storm water conveyance system were based on the RSMeans Heavy Construction Cost Data for year 2002.167 EPA should have used a more recent version to reflect a more accurate cost estimate representa tive of current economic times.168 EPA estimated the piping system labor cost as a constant value based on one operator monitoring the system on each deicing day and a rate of $32 per hour. Having only one operator monitoring the system for 1,000 linear fe et of piping may be justified. However, systems with several thousand feet of piping would certainly require more than one operator, and the labor cost would be substantially higher for larger airports such as the Port Authority airports. Also, the labor a nnual average hourly rate would vary from region to region based on the cost of living as discussed previously. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports. Therefore this c omment is not applicable. However, see the response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 91. EPA agreed with the commenter that the RSMeans Heavy Construction Cost Data should be updated. In the final rule cost calculations, EPA used 2010 RSMean s Cost Data. EPA also addressed concerns with the piping operating and maintenance costs. The costs are based on an assumption that an airport would inspect 20 percent of the storm sewer system annually. EPA agrees with the commenter that the labor rate wo uld vary from region to region; however, to estimate costs for the entire industry, EPA developed a general estimate of labor rates that could be applied to estimate the costs to all airports. C_PIPING - Piping costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 95 We estimated piping costs based on a scenario involving a hypothetical on - site treatment location. The distance from the hypothetical deicing pad locations to the treatment system was multiplied by a unit cost per linear foo t. Again, this estimate is not realistic because adequate space is not available at our airports for on - site treatment systems that would comply with the Proposed Rule. We have included this discussion only for comparison with EPA’s approach. EPA used an a cross - the - board estimate of $502,000 for storm water piping at every airport. For this estimate, EPA assumed that each airport would need to construct 1,000 linear feet of new subsurface storm water conveyance piping. The TDD notes the227 limitations of this assumption: “EPA believes 1,000 linear feet of piping may be overly conservative at some airports, but less than required at others.”217 This type of an assumption might be appropriate for an industrial location. At airport sites that vary widely, however, distances are obviously quite different. Our major airports have runways of up to 12,000 feet in length, separated by distances of thousands of feet in some cases. A distance of 1,000 feet at any of our major airports (and we suspect, at other major airpo rts) is quite small. The result of EPA’s incorrect assumption is that the cost estimates for piping are substantially lower than our realistic cost estimates, and could be lower than the cost estimates at a majority of the airports where piping is required . Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 91. C_PIPING - Piping costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 116 EPA also assumes 1,000 feet of piping per airport and an associated cost. The actual piping is likely to be much more than indicated. Several airports were surveyed regarding the estimated piping they expect will be necessary to meet the requirements of the Proposed Rule. The results are provided in Table 10. In addition, airports with existing dei cing collection and treatment infrastructure provide an indication that the estimated 1,000 feet of piping is completely inaccurate. For example, Buffalo Niagara International Airport has 16,300 linear feet of piping, and Salt Lake City International Airpo rt has 29,000 feet of collection piping (not including the piping that will be necessary for its 6 new deicing pads). [See submittal for Table 10. Estimated Length of Piping Necessary to Meet Proposed Rule Requirements.] Response: See the comment respons e to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 91. C_SCALING - Cost scaling Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 56 GRVs Cannot Be Deployed in Perfectly Scalable Units and EPA Must Account for “Costs of Entry” Unlike other metrics EPA uses to estimate costs, which are per - departure metrics, the metrics to estimate capital and O&M costs are based on a particular feature of airport infrastructure

– the number of stormwater outfalls associated with deicing activities. We explain the inadequacy of this approach below. Here we focus on the ways in which application of these metrics will lead to underestimation of costs. EPA r eports that it uses a value of $108,000 for its “GRV Normalized Capital Cost.”208 [FOOTNOTE:208 TDD at 11 - 15. We note that EPA does not use this value to calculate GRV Capital Costs; the costs reported in its Cost Annualization Model were calculated using a $123,165 value. See Document - 0634, Column EL (“GRV Collection Capital Cost (2006$)”)

– all of these values are the product of $123,165 and the number of “deice” outfalls reported by each airport. The $123,165 value is the value ERG reported using to cal culate the GRV Capital Costs. Document - 1100, at 7 - 8values. A parallel mistake is made in calculating GRV O&M costs: EPA says it used $7,300 as reported in the TDD (at 11 - 15), but the value used to calculate costs for airports was $8,404, the value ERG rep orts using in Document 1100.] This is a fraction of the cost of a single GRV: EPA reports using a value of $360,000 per GRV in estimating “Block - and - Pump” systems citing Document - 0833,209 which in 1999$ reported a range of costs of $200,000 to $400,000 a nd cost of a specific GRV of $400,000.210 Assuming the cost of each GRV Unit used by EPA to calculate costs then is about one - third the price of a single truck, because many airports are assumed to need a number of GRV Units that is not a multiple of three they will in fact incur higher costs than projected by the metric. That is the “cost of entry” to GRVs is (at least)228 $400,000 per vehicle which is not reflected by the metric. The underestimation is compounded where, as is inevitably the case, deicing ope rations at an airport are not separated neatly into fractional shares equivalent to the number of outfalls. Where wholly separable operations are taking place at locations very far apart from one another (e.g., passenger airlines often have separate operat ions dedicated to their fleets; cargo operations often are separated from passenger operations as well), one GRV unit per outfall will not provide adequate coverage. Even assuming EPA’s estimate that one GRV unit will be needed for each outfall is correct (which it is not), an airport with two outfalls that serve simultaneous aircraft operations and are too distant to be served by a single GRV will need two GRVs costing at least $800,000 (again, in 1999$), not the predicted $216,000 cost of 2 GRV units (whi ch really represent about 2/3 of a full GRV). Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports. In addition, the technology basis for the NSPS in the final rule does not include GRVs. Therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, please see the preamble to the final rule. However EPA has revised the estimated costs associated with GCVs; see TDD Section 10.2.2.1 for more informati on. The costs are no longer scaled based on the number of outfalls at an airport; the costs are instead scaled based on the airport hub size. In addition, EPA used a value of $344,200 per GRV capital cost and $59,800 per GRV operating and maintenance cost, based on GRV cost data provided by airports in response to the airport questionnaire. Moreover, for the the Plug and Pump with GCV option for 40 percent collection and control, EPA estimated both capital and annual O&M costs using normalized cost factors (developed using costing data from airports with plug and pump technology) based on the number of deicing outfalls; see TDD Section 10.2.2.1 for more information. For the plug and pump (with GCV) option, EPA has assumed that the number of deicing outfalls will relate to the areas where aircraft deicing occurs, and that an airport with a greater number of discontiguous deicing areas will have a greater number of deicing outfalls. EPA estimated that more deicing areas would indicate the need for additional c osts associated with removing ADF from those areas when using the plug and pump technology. C_SCALING - Cost scaling Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 57 AFBRs Cannot Be Deployed in Perfectly Scalable Units and EPA Must Account for “Costs of Entry” In addition, EPA assumes it is possible to economically construct and operate very small AFBR systems

– the reality is that “the cost of entry” for AFBRs is quit e high. The equation EPA uses to estimate AFBR costs assumes a capital cost of $1,659 for each pound of COD treated per day over an airport specific deicing season (a value it did use when estimating costs for Tier Two airports). As a result, the cost of a n AFBR system decreases linearly with lower daily COD loading to a cost of $1,659 for a system capable of treating one pound of COD per day. This assumption is incorrect, does not consider the ‘cost of entry’ associated with this technology and fails to re cognize cost inefficiencies associated with the construction of smaller treatment facilities. Cost data for implementation of AFBR technology was derived from information provided by ALB and CAK airports. These two facilities treat 5,200 lbs. and 3,400 lbs . of COD per day, respectively using AFBR treatment. Capital costs for both facilities were normalized to the pounds of COD treated per day to arrive at an average cost of $1,659 per pound of COD treated per day. Similarly, operations and maintenance costs were normalized to pounds of COD treated. Smaller systems will be more expensive on a per pound of COD treated basis compared to larger facilities because both facilities require support systems which are not directly associated with the treatment of COD. Specifically, support systems such as gas handling systems, explosion proof equipment, nutrient dosing229 systems, caustic dosing systems and stainless steel construction (or coated steel) are required no matter what size of a system is constructed. EPA’s ap proach also fails to recognize that there are fixed costs associated with the purchase and construction of these systems. For example, a linear regression analysis of the two airports (CAK and ALB) for which cost data are available results in the equation: AFBR Capital Cost = 2,000,000 + 1172.2 * COD Loading This equation indicates that the ‘”cost of entry” to the construction of an AFBR system comparable to those constructed at CAK and ALB is $2,000,000 and further indicates that the costs associated with airports such as BET, BHM and OTZ are significant underestimates of actual construction cost. EPA did recognize that at some point alternatives other than the selected BAT may make more economic sense. For example, the Agency assumed some airports that use very low amounts of ADF would choose to ship collected runoff offsite for treatment rather than incur the cost of AFBRs. Where there is no other economic alternative (or alternative that would achieve applicable BAT) EPA must estimate costs based on the l evel of expense necessary to acquire/construct and operate the “entry unit”

– i.e., one GRV, one CDP, etc.

– necessary to achieve the applicable BAT standard. Response: See comment code C_AFB_BASIS, EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Exc erpt Number 80. Additionally, the costing for NSPS is done at a much broader scale to demonstrate that NSPS is not a barrier to entry, and as such these comments are not vaild for those cost estimates. C_STORAGE - Storage requirements and costs Comment In fo: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 43 TDD Section 8.1.2 "Deicing Stormwater Storage" (Page 8 - 5) did not discuss Lagoon (similar to Detention ponds or retention ponds, but usually are equipped with a floating cover (neoprene or similar material). Similarly, the modular tank and bladder systems used at several airports in the US were not discussed as options to airports. They are fairly low cost alternatives (gallon per gallon) to the methods discussed in the TDD. Response: For the final rule, EPA has revised the TDD language in Section 7.1.2 t o include lagoons in the discussion of “Dentention Ponds/Lagoons and Equalization Ponds”. In addition, although modular tank and bladder systems are not mentioned specifically, Section 7.1.2 includes a discussion of “Storage Tanks”. C_STORAGE - Storage req uirements and costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 44 To clarify on TDD page 8 - 7, "Frac tanks can be easily removed from airport grounds and replaced with empty tanks when existing tanks fill up." Frac Tanks can not be moved once they contain liquids. Structurally, they are not designed to withstand the torque of lifting while full, the transport trucks (cable lift) can not lift the weight of the tank and fluid, and the axle weight (single rear axle) exceeds legal limits. (Approx 175,000 - pounds of liquid.) Response: EPA has revised the TDD language to clarify that frac tanks can be moved only when empty.230 C_STORAGE - Storage requirements and costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 64 TDD Table 11 - 4 identifies that the storage costs were also included in the plug and pump estimates, whereas these costs do not appear to be included in the "GRV" costs estimates/initial capital. Response: The final rule is no longer based on the use of G CVs, therefore this comment is no longer relevant. Nevertheless, we note that EPA’s analysis did include storage costs as part of an entire system using GCVs. EPA calculated costs associated with storage separately from the costs associated with GCVs. To o btain the total cost of the entire system, EPA added the storage costs to the GCV costs. See the TDD for additional details. C_STORAGE - Storage requirements and costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 67 Additionally, what does the costs associ ated with temporary storage at MKE (as detailed in this section) have to do with the discussion of deice pads? This document (TDD) identified MKE as a "plug and pump" airport (page 9 - 4). Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements fo r the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports. In addition, EPA’s economic analysis for new sources was at an aggregate level; the exact costs of storage are not a part of that analysis. Therefore this comment is not applicable to the final r ule. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, please see the preamble to the final rule. C_STORAGE - Storage requirements and costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 73 The estimate of $1.67/gallon of storage was very close to the industry norms (for 2006), however, how it was derived was not. (A carbon steel, field erected tank, ranging from 500k - gallons to 1.5M - gallons would cost approximately $1.50 to $1.75/gallon - capacity in 2006.) A budgeting rule - of - thumb: Tank O&M costs, for budget purposes, 5 % to 7% of the initial capital cost should be budgeted for the annual repair and maintenance. (Once it exceeds this amount per year on a regular basis, the consideration in replacing the tank is warranted.) Response: The final rule does not establish uni form requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports. Therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, please see the preamble to the final rule. However, EPA's calculations for stora ge cost remains equal to $1.67 per gallon. EPA relied on available airport costing data to develop this value. EPA then verified its reasonableness by comparing it to industry information. Please see Section 10.2.2.2 of the TDD for more details.231 C_STORAGE - Storage requirements and costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 75 On TDD page 11 - 37, the Example 1 calculation, the Deice Pad and the AFB Cost components each contain Storage Costs (initial Capital and O&M). Therefore, the storage has been ac counted for twice (although it is uncertain if they amount to equal values i.e. doubled the costs). The same issue occurs in the Example 2, for UF/RO, since there is a line item for Tank and piping, and the inflated cost estimate for the UF/RO also contain ed a (too) large storage tank. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports. Therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, please see the preamble to the final rule. However, EPA has corrected the example calculations in the final rule TDD. C_STORAGE - Storage requirements and costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 71 Similar anomalies exist with respect to the Agency’s storage tank metric: Storage Tank Metric (per departure) • The single largest purchase of storage tanks is projected to be made by CLT, an airport projected to need just two GRVs to collect stromwater; e very Tier One airport is projected to need less storage space to store runoff from CDPs collecting far more fluid and stormwater. 223 • Using the metric for tank costs, airports like LAS and PHX

– located in warm, arid climates where very little ADF is nee ded and there is little precipitation

– are projected to need the second and fourth largest amounts of tank storage. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports. Therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, please see the preamble to the final rule. Howver, EPA agrees with the commenter that normalizing tank volume to the number of airline departures (as was done in the pro posed rule) does not lead to the best estimates of the necessary tank volume. Therefore, the final Technical Development Document has normalized tank storage volume requirements to annual ADF usage in order to develop an equation that could be used to esti mate storage tank sizes and costs at other airports. Using the amount of ADF as a metric will account for climate differences at airports across the country, because ADF applied is a function of the frequency, duration, and intensity of precipitation event s occurring at a particular airport during the course of a deicing season. See Section 10.2.2.2 of the TDD for more information. C_STORAGE - Storage requirements and costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 17 One potential alternative to centrali zed deicing pads ? at - the - gate deicing coupled with collection of deicing runoff from all affected drainage outfalls (“end - of - pipe interception”) ? also would be unworkable at Boston - Logan. The volume of stormwater runoff from Boston - Logan that would need to be collected and stored would be monumental. Using this alternative ADF collection approach at Boston - Logan would232 allow for the current practice of individual airline deicing at the gates to continue but would require the interception of all the deicing runoff from the North and West Outfalls for storage, treatment and disposal. However, given that deicing at Boston - Logan occurs at a number of terminals spread across a large area, the volume of stormwater that would need to be collected and stored for tr eatment is enormous. CDM determined that this collection and storage option would require Boston - Logan to site and build approximately 94.2 million gallons of storage capacity, or fifty - two (52) 1.8 million gallon aboveground storage tanks.157 [FOOTNOTE: 1 57 See CDM Report at pp. 2 - 5, 2 - 10. The total design season volume of deicing runoff from the end - of - pipe interception option that CDM estimated would require treatment and disposal would be 391.6 million gallons. See id. at p. 2 - 5.] Given the infeasibilit y of siting just three additional 1.8 million gallon tanks at Boston - Logan as documented in Richard Bessom’s Affidavit, siting over 52 new 1.8 million gallon tanks at or near Boston - Logan is simply inconceivable.158 [FOOTNOTE: 158 See Bessom Affidavit, 7. ] Even if it were feasible, construction of an aboveground tank farm for storage of 94.2 million gallons of deicing runoff would likely cost in excess of $600 million.159 [FOOTNOTE: 159 See id., 10.] Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports. Therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, please see the preamble to the final rule. However, application of plug - and - pump tech nology for gate deicing at Boston - Logan would not require "end - of - pipe interception" for storage of ADF contaminated stormwater. Therefore, EPA did not assume in their costing for the model airport using Boston - Logan specifications that 94.2 million gallon s of storage capacity would be required. EPA's estimate of normalized ADF usage for Boston - Logan was 985,296 gallons/year. EPA's storage cost methodology includes an estimate of ADF contaminated stormwater collected for storage of 13.1 gal/gal/yr. Thus, fo r this model airport analysis, EPA estimated 12.9 million gallons/year of stormwater storage. See TDD Section 10.2.2.2. C_STORAGE - Storage requirements and costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 7 Deicing fluid is different from chemicals used in typical industries in several ways, most significantly because it is applied outside during winter weather, and thus is usually combined with large volumes of storm water. Another is that, as noted previously, deicing fluids are used seasonally, and dur ing the winter season, most of the fluid use at our airports is concentrated over a few days with major storms, or high flow conditions. These differences present major challenges to the Port Authority airports for: (1) the storage of spent aircraft deicin g fluid mixed with very large quantities of storm water prior to on - site treatment; and (2) the feasibility of sizing and siting the treatment system itself. Response: EPA acknowledges that ADF use is associated with winter weather conditions that includ e mixing of spent ADF with stormwater. However, as described in the TDD, there are proven, available technologies that have been implemented successfully at multiple airports for the collection and treatment of ADF contaminated stormwater.233 C_STORAGE - Stor age requirements and costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 73 The number of departures160 is not a good parameter for estimating a required storage tank volume. A better parameter to use in estimating storm water storage capacity would be preci pitation data, which would directly correlate with the storm water generated at each airport and hence the required storage capacity. The use of airport departures has no bearing on storage tank size, since the amount of ADF applied would constitute a negl igible amount compared to the total amount of storm water runoff. EPA’s 24 gal/departure/yr161 factor, based on only three airports, is too simplistic. There are additional underlying parameters that can be closely related to storm water storage capacity s uch as precipitation, the size of deicing pads, the maximum amount of ADF usage in a season, and the collection method. EPA oversimplified the estimation method of storm water storage. This task can be quite complex, involving modeling that considers a hyd raulic component (translating precipitation into runoff) and a deicer application component (using hourly weather data to simulate ADF usage on a per - plane basis). To capture the worst - case scenario, modeling may need to be done for dozens of deicing seaso ns to capture the true operations and assess the potential range of flows generated for various combinations of weather/deicing events.162 [FOOTNOTE: 162 Based on telephone conversations with consulting firms specializing in AFBR treatment systems, Decembe r 10, 2009.] Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, excerpt 71. C_STORAGE - Storage requirements and costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 74 The factor of “Storage Tank Volume per Departure” for Akron and Denver airports was determined as 101 and 2 gal/departure/yr, respectively.163 These values, based on the number of airport departures and total storage tank volume, were declared outliers whe n compared to three other airports. DEN was an outlier due to an unusually small storage tank volume (i.e., 420,000 gallons) and a high number of airport departures (i.e., 264,051 departures per year); CAK was an outlier due to a small number of departures (i.e., 14,911 departures per year) and a large amount of storm water storage capacity (i.e., 1,500,000 gallons) as compared to other model airports. These facts are indicative of the basic differences between airports and their unique characteristics; air ports are not good candidates for treatment under a “one size fits all” approach. Each airport is unique and would require a separate analysis to determine the storm water storage capacity. Another flaw in the methodology is that the total potential storag e capacity was used to develop the “Storage Tank Volume per Departure” factor. The total storage volume used by EPA in its analysis is the potential storage capacity at an airport (i.e., maximum size of storage tanks) and not the actual storm water being c ollected during each deicing season, which can vary from year to year depending on precipitation amounts. Therefore, EPA should consider the historical data on actual storm water (ADF and precipitation) collected during deicing seasons instead of potential storage capacity in its analysis. Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, excerpt 71. EPA relied on available data to develop cost equations that could be applied to each model airport. For example, in the final rule, the t ank cost equations are based on a relationship between annual ADF usage and storage tank volume requirements and capital costs. This relationship was derived from available data from 5 airports and was applied to the annual amount of ADF used at each airpo rt. In this way, EPA developed estimated costs for each model airport that take into account different situations at different airports without performing234 detailed site - specific analyses. The airport storage information that EPA used to development the cos t equations reflect the actual amount of storage that exists at the airports, not the potential amount. Therefore, the costs derived from the calculations are for actual storage amounts, and not potential amounts. C_STORAGE - Storage requirements and costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 75 EPA should also provide guidance in the Proposed Rule regarding the sizing of the storm water storage capacity including which storm events to consider in the design. The variation in the design for a system based on a 5 - , 10 - , 50 - or 100 - year storm event is critical to both the cost and scope of the system. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports. Therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, please see the preamble to the final rule. However, EPA relied on available airport storage cost and size data to develop cost equations that could be applied to each model airport. The refore, EPA did not perform airport specific analysis which would require the application of theoretical 5 - , 10 - , 50 - , or 100 - year storm events. In the final rule TDD, the tank cost equations are based on a relationship between annual ADF usage and storag e tank volume requirements and capital costs. This relationship was derived from available data from 5 airports and was applied to the estimated annual amount of ADF used at each model airport. Additionally, most deicing activity occurs during snowfall an d design storms are typically referring to rainfall. C_STORAGE - Storage requirements and costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 94 The amount of deicing fluid and storm water collected over the course of an entire season would require prohibiti vely oversized storage facilities at our airports. There is not adequate land available at any of our airports for such large facilities above ground, and existing high groundwater levels, utility networks, and construction logistics issues make constructi on of massive below - ground tanks infeasible. Therefore, we sized hypothetical storage facilities on the basis of a “worst - case” event. In this case, the worst event was a three - day storm during which JFK airlines used more aircraft deicing fluid than at an y other time during the 2008 - 2009 deicing season.214 Using precipitation and deicing fluid use data for JFK (and factoring that information for LGA and EWR), we estimated the following event - based storage requirements: JFK 2.1 million gallons LGA 0.9 mill ion gallons EWR 1.1 million gallons Again, these estimates are based on data from one season, including airline - reported data that may not be complete. A proper effort to size event - based storage facilities would require analysis of long - term empirical we ather data and multiple years of accurate deicing fluid use data, as well as forecasting for future fluid use trends. We are including these estimates simply to indicate the large sizes of the tanks that would be needed just to store the deicing fluid and pad - related storm water from only one event. As with other components of the system, EPA used the size of season - based storage tanks and the number of annual departures at three airports (an unknown airport, PIT, and CVG) to derive a storage tank volume pe r departure factor.215 There are a number of problems with this approach that the limited comment time does not allow us to address in full. Three of the major issues are (1) the use of annual departures to indicate deicing activity, an issue we have explo red in detail in other comments, (2) that precipitation levels, the key factor in determining the amount of storage required, are not reflected in the EPA formula, and (3) the need to rely on deicing fluid use data provided by airlines, but which could not be reasonably verified by the airport operator. The Port235 Authority again strongly maintains that EPA cannot issue a rule based on such extreme variables such as these. As we have not sized or estimated costs for storage tanks that would accommodate longer - term flows, we cannot compare our tank cost estimates to the EPA estimates. However, it is interesting to note that EPA used a “scale factor” that reduced its tank cost estimates by two - thirds.216 We cannot find an explanation for the scale factor in the docket, so we cannot comment on it specifically. EPA must explain what the “scale factor” is and how it was used. However, we are concerned that the result of its use (as we will show below) is that the EPA’s cost estimates for season - based storage tanks a re substantially lower than our cost estimates for short - term, event - based tanks. [FOOTNOTE: 214 Should EPA promulgate Deicing ELGs based on its Proposed Rule without any design storm event being designated, in order to ensure compliance with such a standa rd, the storage requirements for Port Authority airports would be several if not many times this amount in order to ensure compliance.] Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing ai rports. Therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, please see the preamble to the final rule. However, EPA revised the storage cost methodology to a normalized ADF usage basis rather then the number of departures or the scale factor. See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, excerpt 71. For a discussion of why EPA uses airline supplied ADF data, see the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, excerpt 21 under the ADF_PURCHAS E comment code. Additionally, EPA anticiaptes that storage for a specific storm size is not required, an airport will have to size their storage to allow for sufficient equalization for their AFB design. C_STORAGE - Storage requirements and costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 112 On - Site ADF Conveyance and Storage Costs are Underestimated. EPA made a number of inaccurate assumptions with regards to costs for on - site conveyance and storage of collected ADF. To determine the costs associated with ADF stormwater storage and piping, EPA relied on costs from a variety of airports, none of which may accurately portray the costs that may be incurred at other airports. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collect ion or treatment of ADF at existing airports. Therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, please see the preamble to the final rule. However, EPA has revised the storage and conveyance costs in the final rule. See Section 10.2.2.2 of the TDD. EPA relied on available data to develop cost equations that could be applied to each model airport. For example, in the TDD, the tank cost equations are based on a relationship between annual ADF usage and storage ta nk volume requirements and capital costs. This relationship was derived from available data from 5 airports and was applied to the estimated annual normalized ADF usage at each model airport. In this way, EPA developed costs for each model airport that tak e into account different situations at different airports without performing detailed site - specific analyses. EPA used the data collected in the airport detailed questionniare to develop model airport costs which, when viewed nationally, provide an estimat e of the impacts of the various regulatory options evaluated. This approach will overestimate costs for some airports and underestimate costs for others. See TDD Section 10.1.236 C_STORAGE - Storage requirements and costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 113 EPA calculated costs for retention ponds based on various pieces of data from different airports. EPA used Detroit Metropolitan International Airport data to calculate pond volume (relative to runway area). Denver Internati onal Airport was used as the basis for pond costs per gallon volume. Greater Rockford data was used to estimate the appropriate number and size of surface aerators. EPA cannot rely on a hodgepodge of airport data to calculate the costs of retention ponds, a cost driven by site - specific factors. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports. Therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For a discussion of EPA’s d ecision, please see the preamble to the final rule. C_STORAGE - Storage requirements and costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 114 For those airports EPA deemed too space constrained to install retention ponds, EPA calculated costs associated w ith storage tanks. First, we fail to understand EPA’s analysis for determining space was not available

– if “more than 35 percent of their current area for active airport operations [is utilized], then the airport was not a candidate for a retention pond s ystem.”81 It is unclear exactly what area EPA included in its analysis or what uses qualified land as available. EPA’s storage tank costing analysis is based on five (5) airports currently utilizing storage tanks. EPA does not distinguish whether such tank s are located above or below ground, which can greatly impact the associated costs. EPA again normalizes costs to departures, which is not an accurate indicator of necessary storage tank volume or cost. EPA also inexplicably dismisses two of the five piece s of data (Akron and Denver) in calculating storage tank volume per departure, yet goes on to rely on the storage tank installation costs from those same airports. Importantly, Akron is the only airport relied on that actually has an AFB system, EPA’s BAT for ADF stormwater treatment. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports. Therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, p lease see the preamble to the final rule. However, EPA has revised the basis for the storage cost methodology and is not normalizing costs to departures as was proposed. See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 71. In add ition, EPA notes that the revised storage cost methodology uses data from both Akron and Denver. C_STORAGE - Storage requirements and costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 115 The costs associated with storage (and treatment for that matter) ar e complicated by EPA’s failure to propose a “design storm” threshold in the Proposed Rule. EPA’s lack of a “design storm” event threshold means that an airport would be responsible for ensuring storage for deicing seasons that are very rare but would requi re massive storage capacity. Hence, in order to ensure 100 percent compliance with the2 37 Proposed Rule, airports would have to plan for storing ADF stormwater associated with, for example, a 100 - year storm events or larger. EPA’s failure to proposed a design storm probably would lead to over sizing all storage and treatment parameters, adding unnecessary cost and space utilization obligations. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports. Therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, please see the preamble to the final rule. C_STORAGE - Storage requirements and costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 117 EPA assumed that “an airport with a pond already in place would use that for storage, as opposed to constructing permanent tanks ....”82 This is a poor assumption th at artificially reduces costs. The flaw lies in failing to consider the loss of stormwater function that these ponds were originally built to provide. It also ignores the situation where such ponds may be used for storage of dilute runoff that is managed o utside of the effort to meet collection performance standards. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports. Therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, please see the preamble to the final rule. C_STORAGE - Storage requirements and costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 118 EPA also appears to assume that airports with any deicer containment facilities have all o f the necessary infrastructure to handle the deicer impacted stormwater. This assumption does not account for the fact that airports may need additional storage in order to meet the proposed treatment requirements. Response: See the EPA response to comme nt EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, excerpt 117. C_STORAGE - Storage requirements and costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 14 In the TDD, section 11.3.2.3, EPA relied on conveyance cost estimates from a fewairports which do not accurately portray t he costs that may be incurred at otherairports, including SLC. EPA assumes 1000 feet of piping is adequate for ADFconveyance at airports. At SLC, the collected ADF is gravity fed via 5.5 miles(29,000 feet) of high density polyethylene (HDPE) buried pipelin e to one of nineautomated pump stations. The 29,000 feet of conveyance piping does not includethe piping estimates for the six new end of

- runway deicing pad projects. There isalso no mention in the ELG of pump station construction and/or operation andmaint enance costs. EPA must account for the storage, conveyance and treatmentcosts that will result from collecting additional ADF.238 Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports. T herefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For a discussion of EPA’s decision, please see the preamble to the final rule. However, based on comments received, EPA has revised the capital piping costs in the TDD calculations. See comment cod e C_PIPING EPA response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, excerpt 91. Capital costs associated with the piping system include subsurface concrete piping, manholes and catch basins, a lift station and associated pumps, and knife gates through out the system to control the direction of flow. O&M costs were also estimated for the piping system. In the TDD, these costs are based on an assumption that an airport would inspect 20 percent of the storm sewer system annually. C_TANK - Tank costs * See Group Response at end of this comment code * C_TANK - Tank costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 88 EPA’s metric for assessing holding tank costs is manifestly arbitrary.252 The core of the problem appears to be EPA’s constant attempt to “normalize” costs in terms of aircraft departures. The result here is to derive the following formula for estimating costs of holding tanks: Cost = (number of annual departures) * 24 * $1.67 EPA relied on data from five airports (DIA, CAK, PDX, PIT & CVG) to derive this for mula. The 24 is the average of the storage tank volume per departure at three of these airports: PDX (21), PIT (20) and CVG (32); the $1.67 is the average of storage tank capital costs per gallon of storage capacity at another subset of three airports: DIA ($1.89), CAK ($1.93) and CVG ($1.18). EPA “explains” it did not include DIA and CAK in the “gallons - per - departure” because they “appeared to be outliers.”253 (This is notable because, as pointed out above, EPA relies on CAK as just one of two airports to derive the cost metric for the most costly aspect of the Proposed Rule

– AFBR capital costs; also, the Agency relied on CAK as one of just three airports to derive the cost metric for the second most costly aspect of the proposal, CDP capital costs). It di d not have cost data for PDX and PIT. That this “methodology” produces a manifestly inaccurate result should have been evident to the Agency. Applying the “formula” to CAK, the only airport cited that uses tanks for 100% of its storage needs, yields the fo llowing result: Cost of tanks at CAK = 14,911 * 24 * $1.67 = $597,633 This result is fully 80% lower than the $2,890,000 in costs actually incurred by CAK, a value EPA uses in deriving its metric. Moreover, using the metric the two airports projected to in cur the largest costs are IAH and PHX, which the metric predicts would each spend about $9 million on tanks, in 2006$. 254 Tellingly, PHX ultimately was not “assigned costs for management of spent ADF” because it “reported no ADF usage and no SOFP days,” w hile IAH also was not assigned tank costs because it was assumed this airport would “contract collection and off - site disposal of spent ADF.”255 While this make - shift “fix” may be a useful means of avoiding the obviously erroneous conclusion that two airpo rts, both of which are in very warm weather climates and one of which is among the most arid in the country, would need to spend more than another facility to store ADF - laden stormwater, it does not obviate the need to address the fundamental problem: i.e. , that the metric generates such manifestly unsupportable results in the first place. 253 Document - 0853 at 2. We note that EPA lists the “total storage tank volume” for DIA as 420,000; yet its own Engineering Site Visit Report for the airport (Document - 0 513) reports that DIA has five 420,000 storage tanks at its recycling plant (page 5), for a total of 2,100,000 gallons of tank storage capacity. Of course, this pales in comparison to the 61,600,000 gallon capacity of the airport’s six ponds (page 6).239 C_TANK - Tank costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 89 We also note the Agency applies an unexplained 0.33 “scaling factor” to tank costs when calculating capital costs at Tier One airports. 256 Application of this scaling factor effectively cu ts the values for expected tank capital costs for Tier One airports by 67%; as a result, many Tier Two airports with far fewer operations and in much milder climates are projected to incur much higher tank capital costs than Tier One airports. C_TANK - Ta nk costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 90 Even apart from these results, EPA is well aware that the volume of stormwater generated at an airport is predominately a function of two things: Existing airport infrastructure (amount of pavement fr om which stormwater is collected) and climate (type and intensity of storms experienced at a particular location). Document - 0852 , entitled Methodology to Estimate the Total Volume of Airport Stormwater Impacted by ADF, does not even mention departure lev els. Finally, as noted above, the amount of stormwater collected at a particular airport is a result of balancing various factors, including sizing AFBRs

– a per departure metric simply does not reflect the real factors that drive tank costs and, unsurpris ingly, is cannot a reliably predict such costs. C_TANK - Tank costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 76 EPA estimated the capital cost factor of $1.67/gal164 for storage tanks based on data from only three airports. Such an approach is too simplistic based on the incorrect assumption that all airports are alike and the “one size fits all” approach is appropr iate. Building storage tanks would be more challenging at some airports than others. At airports with existing storage tanks and infrastructure, such as ALB, it would be easier to expand the storage capacity by building new tanks as opposed to airports lik e JFK which lack any existing storage capacity and associated infrastructure. For example, land constrained airports like JFK with no existing storage capacity would need to replace/relocate associated underground utilities (such as electrical, water, and storm) which would substantially increase the capital cost of new storage tanks. Also, the airports with high water tables, such as JFK, would require more complex engineering and construction techniques (e.g., deep underground digging) to build storage ta nks and piping, thus significantly raising the capital cost. The construction cost also would vary from region to region due to the cost of materials, labor, land, and other factors. EPA’s methodology in developing the capital cost factor for storm water s torage failed to take into account these important issues. O&M cost factor for storage tanks is unreliable and flawed.165 The O&M cost factor is flawed because it is based only on one airport’s operations and should be a significantly higher number based o n various factors such as labor cost, size of the storage, annual tank inspections, and tank cleaning. EPA has overlooked all of the aforementioned factors, which can significantly affect the annual O&M cost. EPA should collect more data from various airpo rts and take into consideration the parameters listed above in order to develop a more realistic O&M cost factor representative of operations at an airport.240 C_TANK - Tank costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 119 EPA also does not analyze the ability of land constrained airports to meet required storage needs. EPA assumes underground storage is always an option for land constrained airports while giving no consideration to the physical ability to construct underground storage (e.g., depth to gr oundwater), the existing current underground storage for other purposes, or existing piping and utility infrastructure (e.g., fuel lines). C_TANK - Tank costs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1 - 12 In the support document titled “Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for Anaerobic Fluid Bed Treatment of ADF Contaminated Stormwater” EPA makes the following statement about storage related to the AFB system at CAK: “It should be noted that the costs shown in Table 1 include storage equipment such as tanks a nd ponds prior to anaerobic treatment. The storage equipment provides sufficient equalization to dampen flow and concentration changes indicative of deicing events.” Table 1 in that document shows the costs of the ALB and CAK AFB systems including storage. By including the storage costs in the costs of the AFB systems, EPA has assumed that all AFB systems with similar daily load rates will require “equalization” storage with similar sizes to the storage at CAK. In making this assumption, EPA has fundamental ly misrepresented the purpose of storage for the AFB system at CAK and likely the quantity of storage required at other facilities. While the equalization that occurs in the storage tanks can help to dampen flow and concentration changes, the equalization effects are minor. Equalization is not the primary purpose of our storage nor is our storage sized based on equalization considerations. The storage at CAK is required because the uncontrolled flow from our deicing pads varies differently than the controll ed flows entering the treatment plant. This flow discrepancy triggers the need for storage. The size of storage required at CAK is less a function of the type of treatment and more a function of the CAK specific site conditions. We believe that lumping the equalization costs with treatment costs in EPA’s method is inaccurate and fundamentally misrepresents CAK’s basis of design and system costs. We request that storage and equalization costs be considered independently and not be based on CAK’s site specifi c circumstances. G roup R esponse for all Comments under Comment Code C_TANK The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports. Therefore the rule does not require additional tanks at an existing airport , and these comments are therefore not applicable to the final rule. However EPA did modify the costing of tanks based on comments received. D etails of the revised costing methodology are in the Final Techn i cal Development Document . CDP_OP_IMPA CT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 102 Efforts to Reduce New York Area Delays Delay Reduction Initiatives. The Partnership’s economic study refers to some of the recommendations of the Delay Reduction Task Force, which was convened by the Port Authority in 2007 to identify means to reduce aircr aft delays at the New York airports. The recommendations of the Task Force were echoed in a report released by the Aviation Rulemaking241 Committee (“ARC”), established by the U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) to identify means to reduce delay. The AR C released a report with 77 recommended initiatives for improving aviation operations and infrastructure.226 A 2009 review by the U.S. DOT Department of the Inspector General found that, two years after release of the report, “delays and congestion in the NY area have only minimally been reduced.” The review found that of the 30 initiatives the FAA said had been implemented, most were not being used or were being used infrequently. The factors affecting use of the measures include the limited need for the s pecific measure, operational and technical problems, unfinished testing, and controller and airline issues. The review also found challenges to the implementation of the remaining 47 initiatives, including special training and equipment requirements, “ques tionable practicality,” and litigation. Many of the remaining initiatives are part of nationwide programs with longer - term implementation schedules.227 With concurrence and financial assistance from the FAA through the provision of Airport Improvement Prog ram (”AIP”) funding, the Port Authority has been implementing initiatives within its control at JFK, including the reconstruction and widening of Runway 13R - 31L; the construction of high - speed exit taxiways and improvement of taxiway fillets associated wit h 13R - 31L; improvements to 31L taxiway access to provide additional queuing and sequencing capability for 31L departures; construction of a new taxiway south of 31L to provide to provide additional capability for 31L departures; the extension of taxiways, and others.228 At EWR, the Port Authority has developed a Delay Reduction Program with a series of 11 airfield projects, also being made possible by the FAA’s provision of AIP funding. One of the key items resulting from the Port Authority Task Force’s wor k is to improve aircraft ground movements on the taxiway system by adding multiple access points to the existing runway ends. The Port Authority has applied for Passenger Facility Charge funding for a multiple entrance taxiway at the end of Runway 22R.229 The agency also is studying possible “end - around” taxiways and additional high - speed taxiways. A Ground - Based Augmentation System (“GBAS”) is in the process of being installed, for testing by Continental Airlines during 2010. High - tech landing systems also will be deployed at EWR over the next few years to greatly improve the ability of aircraft to land in poor weather conditions, reducing flight cancellations and delays to passengers. A GBAS also is planned for LGA, and other means of reducing delays are b eing studied for LGA, although LGA’s extremely tight space constraints make airfield improvement difficult. We are noting these efforts for several reasons. First, airfield improvements are being implemented at JFK that will affect the feasibility of deici ng pads there (by further restricting the limited land available). Second, use of the airfields and their airspace connectivity at all three major airports is complex and directly related to aircraft delay. The Port Authority and FAA are making major effor ts to improve the efficiency of airfield use and thus reduce delays. There is grave concern that deicing pads would have a negative impact to those efforts. Third, in spite of those efforts, it is proving difficult so far to reduce delays substantially. An d finally, the potential impact on delay at our airports needs to be considered as part of any discussion of deicing pads, because any deicing requirement that increases delay has implications for the operation of the airports and the aviation system. EPA has not addressed any of these concerns in the Proposed Rule. The Port Authority’s position is that this Proposed Rule should not move forward until this extremely important issue is adequately addressed by EPA. Airspace Redesign. In 2007, the FAA approved a redesign of the airspace in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia metropolitan area. The preferred alternative - Integrated Airspace Alternative with Integrated Control Complex, which was selected by FAA through an eight - year NEPA process - consolidates many sectors of airspace under one Air Route Traffic Control Center; uses a three - nautical - mile separation of aircraft over a larger geographic area; and includes new and modified air traffic control procedures, modified departure gates, and new arrival p osts and departure headings. Aircraft routes will be changed over an area that includes the entire state of New Jersey and portions of Delaware, Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania. The eight airports that will be most affected by the airspace changes include JFK, LGA, and EWR.230 The need for the airspace redesign is directly related to aircraft delay at the Port Authority airports: “congestion and delays at airports in the NY/NJ/PHL Metropolitan Area are some of the worst in the country and aircraft o perations are forecast to continue to grow.”231 The delays are due in part to the inefficiencies of the current airspace structure, which was designed and implemented in the 1960s. The242 FAA has concluded that the airspace system cannot efficiently handle th e current and projected levels of traffic within the NY/NJ/PHL Metropolitan Area. The airspace redesign is intended to address the airspace inefficiencies that cause delay.232 The FAA states that “the purpose of the airspace Redesign is to increase the eff iciency and reliability of the airspace structure and ATC system, thereby accommodating growth while enhancing safety and reducing delays in air travel.”233 One of the key aspects of the airspace redesign is that it lays the foundation for what is known as “NextGen,” which in essence involves the transformation of the existing ground - based radar navigation system to a satellite based system.234 The airspace redesign and the improvements involved in NextGen are major, complex, multiyear efforts intended to i ncrease the efficiency of the airport and airspace system. We are concerned that the Proposed Rule does not include consideration of the effects of required use of deicing pads on these efforts. Response: EPA notes that it did not establish uniform perfor mance requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing facilities. Therefore this comment is not applicable to the final rule. For new airports, EPA has determined that the use of centralized deicing pads does not present the space/land, safety or operational issues associated with the use of deicing pads at existing sources, and does not create a “barrier to entry.” For more information see Preamble Section VI.C. EPA has revised the final rule to explicitly state "each centralized deicing pad shal l be sized and sited in accordance with all applicable FAA advisory circulars” including those associated with safety. Additionally, in the final rule the permittee may use different specifications for operation and/or maintenance provided the permittee ca n demonstrate to the permit writer’s satisfaction that they still meet the collection requirement in the permit. CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 92 EPA makes an incorrect statement in the Economic Analysis in explaining why the Agency chose (wrongly) to believe that operational cost impacts, such as those we have estimated in switching from gate/apron deicing to pads, do not exist. EPA states: “Furthermore, EPA believes that as long as deicing pads do not reduce the number of departures per hour below the limit caused by the weather itself, then the cost of delays is attributable to the bad weather, not the deicing pads... Therefore, EPA did not estimate costs for potential delays that might be caused by deicing pads.”75 EPA is simply incorrect in this statement. We agree that bad weather can cause delays, but the increase in delays during bad weather resulting from deicing at pads rather than at gates/aprons is the quantity that should be assessed and counted as a cost of the regulation. This increase in delays can be substantial, even if the pads are sized so as to accommodate an aircraft throughput equal to: a) “the airport’s peak hourly departure rate” (as EPA has proposed76); or b) “ the airport’s peak hour departure rate that the [air traffic control tower] can manage during icing conditions” (as FAA guidance requires; see discussion elsewhere in these comments). The amount of weather - related delay associated with pad deicing depends on two factors: 1) the throughput of the deicing pads; and 2) the total length of time required to get an aircraft from push back at a gate to and through the pad and then to the runway for takeoff. EPA recognizes the first of these factors, but fails to a ppreciate the importance of the second. To the extent that pad deicing requires a plane to spend more time proceeding from gate to takeoff (e.g., because of taxi time to the pad, time spent during deicing on the pad with passengers on board, and taxi time from the pad to runway) than does gate deicing, a shift to pad deicing will increase delays during weather conditions when deicing is required.243 Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and Section V.B .2 in the preamble. CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 7 Deicing pads will slow down capacity at ANC for the following reasons: a. Will require funneling aircraft through one or two locat ions, increasing ground time and fuel usage. b. Will require additional coordination and delay due to different companies deicing trucks going to and from deicing pads. c. Delays due to having to return for additional deicing due to hold over times being e xceeded. Response: See the response to comment 1240.1 - 92 (above) CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 6 Deice Pads as an ADF collection method: Lastly, on Page 44686 Section VII, (B) (1) (c) discusses the topic of Centralized Deicing Pads. First, the term centralized invokes a location, i.e. central to operations. As noted in your publications, they may be a djacent to the gate areas, end of taxiways, and runways. These locations typically are not at a central location. A more accurate term may be "dedicated", "designated", "controlled", "contained", or simply "Deice Pad". A "deice pad" may not necessarily hav e a dedicated, separate drainage system, but one that is converted from storm water to deice management in winter and back to storm water in the spring. Many that do a have a dedicated drainage system are also unique in that they are also surrounded by sto rm water systems designed to keep clean storm water from entering the deice pad as well. (Most ramp storm water drainage systems do not isolate adjacent areas from each other, unless when necessary to direct flow to a different outfall based on volume conc erns.) The statement "Centralized deicing pads reduce the volume of deicing wastewater by restricting deicing to very small areas" was made by the EPA. Our question is "compared to what?" When comparing "GRV" to "Plug and Pump" to "Deicing Pads" you have s panned the range of active to passive ADF management. Experience has shown (this is also discussed later in this correspondence as it relates to coupling collection and treatment recommendations) the overall volume captured increases significantly as you g o from active to passive management. Accordingly, the overall ADF concentration decreases rapidly as you go from active to passive collection. Response: EPA has revised the definition of CDP in the final regulation to indicate that the pad may not necessarily have separate drainage. Additionally, the term centralized deicing pad was frequently used to describe this technology and as such EPA is retaining that language, however nothing in the regulation dictates where the pad(s) are located. Additi onally, EPA concurs with the commenter that the volume of captured deicing stormwater will generally increase as you go from active to passive management, however the overall concentration of ADF is dependent on how collection occurs including utilization of technologies such as berms, to divert clean stormwater.244 CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 7 Plug and Pump verses Deice Pads: When comparing "Plug and Pump" and "Deicing Pads", typical ly, they capture the same volume acre to acre. The real - world differences in volume and concentration depend on a number of factors. Most "deice pads" have been sized (surface area) not only to comply with the safety requirements of the FAA Circulars4 , bu t also to capture as much ADF as possible. This usually requires more surface area than the minimum specified by the FAA Circulars, which results in higher volumes of precipitation being captured. A "Plug and Pump" is usually defined by the "reach" of the existing storm water systems, and may not include as much surface area as a "Deice Pad". Our experience has shown that to obtain the 60 - percent (minimum) capture efficiency rating described in this section; the following must occur: the dedicated pads (or plug and pump areas) must be "over - sized" to capture as much of the ADF as possible, and remain "active" well beyond the deicing event, collecting uncontaminated storm waters, so as to "cleanse" the collection and conveyance system of residual ADF, while u sing used the active management techniques ("GRV") after deicing events to reach that level of ADF capture. The above section continues at the top of page 44687, with the statement "a deicing pad is specially graded and designed to capture highly contamina ted runoff, ...". Unfortunately, this is not really true, as the FAA circulars for Airport design (150/5300 series) do not differentiate between regular ramp, taxiway, or deicing pad contours. The contours of the deicing areas can not exceed the maximum sl ope specified by the FAA. As such, to ensure effective capture, the deice pads require more surface area to capture the ADF and subsequently direct it to the catch basis and trench drains usually install for such purposes. This larger than necessary captur e area results in lower concentrations being captured, the reverse of the statement made in this section. However, they are still of a concentration allowing for recycling. Having presented these observations, it appears by your statements that the only re maining difference between a "deice pad" and a "plug and pump" area is that the "deice pad" has dedicated piping from the pad to the wastewater storage facility. This also is not an accurate assumption, as there are a number of "deice pads" that have been constructed and placed into service that has no dedicated piping, or storage associated with them. The Table (VII - 1) at the end of this section states that the estimated number of "Centralized Deicing Pads" used by airports is 66. Is this number considered a sub - set of the 211 airports (estimate) using storm water drainage systems referenced in the TDD, Table 5 - 11, page 5 - 14? If not, what was the basis for estimating the number of airports utilizing deicing pads? If based on industry response, why was this category of collection not specifically called out under Table 5 - 11? Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that the volume and concentration of stormwater collected from deicing pads and plug - and - pump collection systems vary depending on a number of fa ctors. The commenter has misinterpreted the discussion of deicing pads in the TDD. The intended meaning of EPA’s description of deicing pads in the TDD is that deicing pads collect stormwater that is a higher ADF concentration than the general stormwater of the airport. This statement remains true, regardless of the surface area of the deicing pad. No comparison of the collected stormwater from deicing pads and plug and - pump systems was intended. Please see Section 7.1 of the final TDD. In the statemen t “a deicing pad is specially graded”, EPA intended only that the deicing pad is graded to allow for the stormwater to collect in the drains. EPA did not intend to imply that the deicing pads were steeply graded. The numbers of airports with deicing pads and stormwater drainage systems were estimated based on responses to the airport questionnaire. According to these data, all airports with deicing pads reported having stormwater drainage systems.245 Also, see the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102. . Also see DCN AD01260 for additional details on New Source costing. CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 39 TDD Page 8 - 2, the second paragraph states "Ai rcraft deicing pads also centralize deicing activities, which allow airports to more easily collect high concentration ADF - contaminated stormwater, creating a better opportunity for recycle and recovery of glycol. Transporting spent ADF off site to wastewa ter treatment plants, POTWs, or recycling facilities is also more economical when the amount of deicing stormwater is minimized." This begins a number of references in the TDD which mischaracterize the volumes and concentrations of the collection technique s proposed by the EPA. It is correct that a deicing pad focuses the ADF application activities; however, to ensure a high percentage of capture, these surface areas are usually "enlarged" to control as much of the potential fugitive emissions (overspray, j et - blast, etc.) and therefore capture far more precipitation than an "at - gate" application. These systems, being much larger, retain residual ADF in the piping, trenches, etc. for much longer periods after the event, and therefore remain "active", capturi ng diluting precipitation for longer periods of time as well. The result, there is the potential to recover a much more dilute material than by the other collection methods. This is especially true if the EPA proposed rule sets the MINIMUM capture efficien cy of these systems at 60%, which is the uppermost capture rate possible from the best designed and operated systems. It is this reason that many deice pad operations segregate the captured material (based on flow and concentration) over the course of a de ice event. This segregation can result in a relatively small volume of "high concentrate" which in a recycle operation could go direct to Evaporation, a very large volume that would be directed to UF/RO, then evaporation, etc. Lastly, the remaining contami nated flow would then be managed as an indirect discharge. To give an example of a two stage collection, (2004 - 2005 seasonal amounts, PIT): "high concentrate" totaled 769,984 - gallons at approx. 12 - 15% which was processed by Evaporator/Distillation, and "lo w concentrate" of 5,381,427 - gallons at 1.25 - 1.5% processed by UF/RO, then Evaporator/Distillation. Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102. Additionally, site specific designs are required to determ ine how best to incorporate ADF collection and treatment technology to ensure sufficient wastewater is collected to support a biological treatment system and sufficient volume is collected to meet the collection requirement. CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized de icing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 52 [T]he volume and concentrations from "deice pads" have been mischaracterized by the EPA. The statement "increase the amount of concentrated deicing stormwater collected..." is cor rect in the sense that a 'deice pad" collects considerably more volume than a "GRV" collection program, but not necessarily as great of a concentration. Looking at the example used above (PIT, 2004 - 2005 deicing season) the overall concentration collected f rom the "deice pads" was approx. 3%. There are other examples where the average concentration from a "deice pad" is higher, but you will probably also find that the overall capture efficiency was also well below the minimum 60% specified by the proposed ru le. Response: See EPA's response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, excerpt 39.246 CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 66 NOTE: very few "deice pads" utilize PLC controlled gates (and a few that do have experienced operational issues, requiring them to resort to manual operation). Response: The final rule does not require the use of PLC controlled gates. CDP_OP_IMPACT - Cen tralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1 - 8 The NPRM does not consider the effect such a proposal would have on complex airport and airline operations. The mandates contained within the NPRM would inevitably have an effect on operations and could result in significant delays at airports, which have complex operational environments, and during bad weather conditions. Such delays will add significant operational costs to the already burdened industry in the form of a dditional fuel burn, staff and maintenance costs. While some airports choose to centralize their deicing operations, this solution is not compatible in every airport environment. Therefore, at some airports, such as LGA, which are highly congested and extr emely land constrained, operations could be seriously and needlessly interrupted and congested. Further, due to the extreme interconnectivity of the global aviation system, delays at one airport chronically spread out over the entire global system. Additio nally, such delays would only serve to increase the impact of operations on the environment due to additional taxi and wait times. The aviation industry has historically been supportive of the development of central deicing pads where feasible. However, th e decision to introduce such facilities must be driven by measurable operational, safety, environmental and efficiency gains. Response: See the response to 1240.1 - 92 (above) CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1220 - 1 Additional clarification is requested for the operation and maintenance of Centralized Deicing Pad technology under 449.20 (b)(1)(ii). Under this part, items (A) thru (G) are specified as the technical specifications required to be followed in order to demonstrate compliance with the 60 percent capture rate. What is not included in these specifications is the need to have and follow operation and maintenance specifications for the Centralized Deicing Pads so that the system componen ts will be maintained in good operational condition. Items to be addressed can include such items as the filling of pavement cracks and expansion joints, collection tank and line water tightness, and proper maintenance of pumps and control valves. It is th erefore requested that an additional requirement be provided for the development of an operation and maintenance plan and its submittal to the Director for approval. Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excer pt 102. The deicing pad technical specifications state that the pad and associated collection equipment shall be installed and ma intained per any applicable manufacturers’ instructions, and shall be inspected, at a minimum, at the beginning of each deicin g season to ensure that the pad and associated equipment are in working condition. The method for demonstrating this requirement is met will be determined between the247 airport and the permitting authority. Developing and implementing an operation and maint enance plan is one way to make such a determination. However, EPA did not include such a specification to allow for additional flexibility and methods to demonstrate compliance. CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EP A - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1224.2 - 1 The only way the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) could comply with the proposed rule would be to collect and treat spent aircraft deicing and anti - icing fluids through the use of a centralized deicing pad (CDF). At Loga n Airport this would require the relocation of aircraft deicing operations from the gate and ramp areas, where nearly all deicing activity occurs currently, to a centralized deicing facility. Massport and its consultants have determined that the only feasi ble location for a CDF would be at Pad Juliet on the southwest side of the airport, where a limited amount of aircraft deicing currently takes place. An expanded Pad Juliet has been designed to accommodate up to nine aircraft and is configured with seven p ositions sized for Group II/III aircraft or smaller and two positions sized for Group IV/V aircraft or smaller. The proposed rule would require all aircraft that need to be deiced and/or anti - iced to taxi from the gate areas to Pad Juliet and then from Pad Juliet to the departure runway ends. In doing so, all aircraft would incur additional taxi time above current conditions, in which aircraft are deiced at the gate and then taxi directly to the departure runway. In addition, during busy departure periods, aircraft would incur queuing delays waiting to be deiced at Pad Juliet. SH&E was asked by Massport to estimate the additional taxi times and aircraft queuing delays that would occur with deicing at Pad Juliet and to estimate the associated costs to airline s and passengers. SH&E calculated the delays associated with use of Pad Juliet by performing a comparative analysis of existing taxi times from the gate and ramp areas to the departure runway ends and the total taxi times that would be involved with the us e of a single, centralized deicing facility (CDF) at Pad Juliet. Specific analyses performed by SH&E include the following: Aircraft and Passenger Delay and Costs Resulting From Centralized Aircraft Deicing at Logan International Airport, February 24, 2010 Page 1 • An analysis of the number of aircraft deiced at Logan International Airport during the 2008/2009 season1 [FOOTNOTE: 1 Deicing at Logan Airport typically begins in October and ends the beginning of April. For the analysis in this report, the deici ng season was defined as October 1 to March 31.] by day and the weather conditions when deicing took place. This analysis determined the number of aircraft that would incur additional taxi time and the number of aircraft that would incur delays due to cong estion or queuing at Pad Juliet. • An analysis of changes in aircraft taxi distances and taxi times from the gate areas to the departure runway ends that would result from relocating deicing activities from the terminal areas to the CDF. • An estimate of q ueuing delays that would be incurred at Pad Juliet during times when aircraft demand exceeds the capacity of the Pad. • An estimate of the cost of additional taxi times and aircraft queuing to the airlines, in terms of aircraft operating costs, and to pass engers, in terms of the value of time. The analysis was conducted using current winter airline flight schedules at Logan Airport to establish a base year estimate for the 2009/2010 deicing season (“2010”). The results for the base year were then extrapolat ed to the 2019/2020 deicing season (“2020”) to represent the future impacts of deicing at the CDF. The actual hourly throughput of Pad Juliet may vary for a number of reasons including the severity of the deicing conditions, the amount of time needed to ap ply deicing/anti - icing fluids, and the mix and sequencing of aircraft that need to be deiced at a particular time. Because of the variability and uncertainty associated with the throughput rate of Pad Juliet, queuing delays were modeled using two throughpu t rates. Hence all delay and cost estimates are provided for a Low and a High case, which vary solely because of differing assumptions regarding the throughput of Pad Juliet. The following section summarizes the taxi time and queuing delays associated with the use of Pad Juliet and the costs of those delays to airlines and passengers. The subsequent chapters describe the analytical approach, major assumptions and the data used to produce the estimates of overall delays to airlines and their passengers, and the associated costs of delays that would be incurred with the centralization of deicing operations.248 Response: See the response to 1240.1 - 92 (above) CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1224.2 - 2 The key findings of our analysis are as follows: • During the approximately 112 days of deicing at Boston - Logan per year, the Proposed Rule would cause an average additional delay for every aircraft deiced of between 10 and 25 minutes. In ten years, thi s additional delay per aircraft would jump to approximately 16 to 44 minutes. • During the approximately 27 days per year with moderate deicing conditions, the Proposed Rule would cause an average additional delay for every aircraft deiced of between 14 an d 43 minutes. By the year 2020, this additional delay would balloon to approximately 24 to 78 minutes per deiced aircraft

– far above the 15 - minute delay threshold set by the FAA. [See section 2: estimation of aircraft delays of this submittal below for me thodology and data for CDP delay analysis for Logan Airport] Response: See the response to 1240.1 - 92 (above) CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1224.2 - 4 Taxiing and Queuing Delays for Deicing at Pad Juliet There are two sources of incremental time or delay associated with the centralization of aircraft deicing at Logan Airport. First, all aircraft that need the application of deicing or anti - icing fluids w ill incur additional taxi time as they taxi from the gate and ramp areas to Pad Juliet in the southwest corner of the airfield and then from the pad to the departure runway end. Second, in certain conditions, aircraft would experience delays as a result of queuing at the Pad. These two sources of incremental time represent the total delays that would be incurred as a result of deicing at Pad Juliet versus the current practices of deicing at the terminal gates and ramp areas. Delays due to additional taxi ti mes, which are constant in both the Low and High Cases (because deicing pad throughput rates were assumed not to affect taxi time), are estimated at 679 hours in 2010 and 793 hours in 2010. (See Exhibit 1 - 1) The increase in total taxi times from 2010 to 20 20 is a function of the forecast growth in aircraft operations between 2010 and 2020. Based on data collected from the airlines on the number of aircraft deiced during the 2008/2009 season, it was estimated that approximately 6,200 aircraft would require d eicing in the 2010 base year. With forecast growth in aircraft operations, it was estimated that approximately 7,250 aircraft would require deicing at Pad Juliet in 2020. Both estimates reflect the Aircraft and Passenger Delay and Costs Resulting From Cent ralized Aircraft Deicing at Logan International Airport, February 24, 2010 Page 3 weather patterns for the 2008/2009 winter season, during which there were 112 days on which deicing was required. On average, deicing at Pad Juliet will increase taxi times f or each aircraft by 6.6 minutes. Taxi times for widebody and general aviation (GA) aircraft, which primarily depart from the north side of the airport, would increase the most, by approximately 9 minutes. Exhibit 1 - 1: Incremental Taxi Time Delays Associate d with the Use of Pad Juliet for Deicing at Logan Airport

– Base Case and Forecast [See submittal for data table provided by commenter, page 3] While all deiced aircraft would incur additional taxi time because of the longer distances traveled with the use of Pad Juliet, only a portion of deiced aircraft would be subject to congestion and queuing delays at the pad. Based on data analysis and discussions with Massport Aviation Operations staff, we predict that queuing delays would only occur during “moderate deicing” weather conditions, as explained below. (Please note that the definitions of “light,” “moderate,” and “heavy” deicing used in this study were for the purposes of this study only, and may not correspond with the use of those terms by Massport or o ther249 consultants.) During times of “light deicing” activity, when there is no freezing snow or precipitation, but some aircraft require deicing because of frost conditions, the number of aircraft that need to be deiced is low and is not likely to result in delays at Pad Juliet. There were 78 “light deicing” days in 2008 - 2009. During “heavy deicing” conditions, defined as very heavy snowstorms with 4 or more inches of accumulation in a day, the number of aircraft that need to be deiced Aircraft and Passenger Delay and Costs Resulting From Centralized Aircraft Deicing at Logan International Airport, February 24, 2010 Page 4 may also be low relative to scheduled aircraft demand because of airline flight cancellations. Also, during very heavy snow events, aircra ft are more likely to incur delays as a result of runway closures for snow removal operations or weather conditions. As a result, no queuing delays are forecast at pad Juliet under these conditions. There were 7 “heavy deicing” days in 2008 - 2009. On “moder ate deicing” days, defined as days with freezing rain or light snow (less than 4 inches of accumulation throughout a day), there are likely to be relatively few flight cancellations and large numbers of aircraft that require deicing. On many of these moder ate deicing days, freezing rain or snow occurs overnight, which requires all RON (remain overnight) aircraft to be deiced before departure the following morning. There were 27 “moderate deicing” days in 2008 - 2009. Thus, moderate deicing days would cause qu euing delays at pad Juliet. Based on the number of aircraft deiced during the 2008/2009 season and corresponding weather data, it was estimated that approximately 3,200 aircraft would require deicing on the 27 moderate deicing days and would incur queuing delays at Pad Juliet in 2010. The number of aircraft deiced on these moderate deicing days represents 51 percent of all aircraft deiced at Logan during the deicing season. Accounting for growth in aircraft operations over the forecast period, the number of aircraft that would require deicing on moderate deicing days in 2020 was estimated at 3,730. Queuing delays for the aircraft using Pad Juliet during moderate deicing conditions vary for the Low and High Cases because of different assumptions regarding air craft throughput at Pad Juliet. In the Low Case, which assumes that 36 aircraft can be deiced at pad Juliet in an hour, queuing delays are estimated at 398 hours in 2010 and 1,107 hours in 2020. The High Case assumes that Pad Juliet’s hourly throughput is 27 aircraft. As a result of the lower throughput, the queuing delays in the High Case increase to 1,938 hours in 2010 and 4,457 hours in 2020. (See Exhibit 1 - 2) Exhibit 1 - 3 summarizes the average queuing time per aircraft for those aircraft on moderate dei cing days that would experience queuing delays waiting to be deiced at Pad Juliet. The average queuing time per aircraft in the 2010 base year ranges from 7.5 minutes in the Low Case to 36.5 minutes in the High Case. For the forecast year, the average dela y per aircraft ranges from 17.8 minutes to 71.7 minutes. The FAA requires reporting of air traffic delays of 15 minutes or more.2 [FOOTNOTE: 2 http://www.bts.gov/programs/statistical_policy_and_research/source_and_accuracy_compendium/air_tr affic_delay.htm l] Aircraft and Passenger Delay and Costs Resulting From Centralized Aircraft Deicing at Logan International Airport, February 24, 2010 Page 5 Exhibit 1 - 2: Queuing Delays Associated with the Use of Pad Juliet for Deicing at Logan Airport

– Base Case and Fo recast [see submittal for data table provided by commenter, page 6] Queuing Delay Hours for Deicing Season Exhibit 1 - 3: Average Queuing Delays Associated with the Use of Pad Juliet for Deicing at Logan Airport

– Base Case and Forecast [See submittal for da ta table provided by commenter, page 6] Average Queuing Delay per Aircraft (Minutes) Aircraft and Passenger Delay and Costs Resulting From Centralized Aircraft Deicing at Logan International Airport, February 24, 2010 Page 6 Thus, in 2010, the estimated to tal delays for deicing operations at the CDF (including both queuing and taxiing delays) are 1,076 hours in the Low Case and 2,616 hours in the High Case. (See Exhibit 1 - 4) In the 2020 forecast year, delays are estimated at 1,900 hours in the Low Case and 5,251 hours in the High Case. Scheduled passenger airlines are estimated to incur 95 percent of the delays associated with the use of Pad Juliet. Exhibit 1 - 4: Estimated Incremental Delays Associated with the Use of Pad Juliet for Deicing at Logan Airport

– Base Case and Forecast [See submittal for data table provided by commenter, page 7] Total Delay Hours for Deicing Season Exhibit 1 - 5 shows the average minutes of additional time per aircraft for all aircraft deiced at Pad Juliet over the deicing season. T he average delay per aircraft in the base year ranges from 10.4 minutes in the Low Case to 25.3 minutes in the High Case. For the forecast year, the average delay per aircraft ranges from 15.7 minutes to 43.5 minutes. Aircraft and Passenger Delay and Costs Resulting From Centralized Aircraft Deicing at Logan International Airport, February 24, 2010 Page 7 Exhibit 1 - 5: Average Delay per250 Aircraft for Deicing at Pad Juliet

– Base Case and Forecast [See submittal for data table provided by commenter, page 8] Av erage Delay per Aircraft (Minutes) On the 27 days per year with moderate deicing conditions, aircraft would incur queuing delays while waiting to be deiced at pad Juliet in addition to the added taxi times incurred. In 2010, the total average delay per air craft on these moderate deicing days is between 14 and 43 minutes. By the year 2020, the total average delay would increase to approximately 24 to 78 minutes per deiced aircraft

– far above the 15minute delay threshold set by the FAA. Exhibit 1 - 6: Average Delay per Aircraft for Deicing at Pad Juliet on Moderate Deicing Days

– Base Case and Forecast [See submittal for data table provided by commenter, page 8] Average Delay per Aircraft (Minutes) Response: See the response to 1240.1 - 92 (above) CDP_OP_IMPA CT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 32 EPA Fails to Consider Safety in Its Designation of BAT 1. ADF Collection for Tier One Airports EPA fails to consider safety impacts when designating ADF Collec tion BAT for Tier One airports. In Section VII(A)(2) below we explain that EPA’s finding that land is “available” to accommodate CDPs at Tier One airports is the keystone in its decision to designate CDPs as BAT for Tier One airports. EPA identified Docume nt - 1171 as the basis for its “determin[ation] that these constrained airports have sufficient land to install the necessary collection technologies.”91 [FOOTNOTE: 91 Notice at 44692, col. 1.] This analysis (hereinafter the “Land Availability Analysis” or Document - 1171) is fatally flawed in many respects. Here, we focus on the failure to account for safety imperatives. EPA fails to consider safety in its Land Availability Analysis even though it cites FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300 - 14B, 92 which details CD P design issues critical to maintaining the safety of air and ground operations. [FOOTNOTE:92 AC 150/5300 - 14B Design of Aircraft Deicing Facilities. In Document - 1171, EPA cites a previous version of the AC (150/5300 - 14A), which was reissued as AC 150/5300 - 14B on February 5, 2008, two days before the date on Document - 1171. EPA clearly was aware of the update, which is included in the Record as Document - 0741, and as Attachment A to Document - 0740. EPA also specifically listed AC 150/5300 - 14B as one of seve ral FAA has issued dealing with deicing issues in the Notice at 44682, col. 1.] The AC begins: Safe and efficient aircraft operations are of primary importance in the development of any deicing facility. This AC discusses sizing, siting, environmental runo ff mitigation, and operational needs of a deicing facility and how to maximize deicing capacity while maintaining maximum safety and efficiency.93 The AC goes on to detail the many operational and safety considerations that affect the design of deicing pad s. For example, 2 - 2 states: To ensure aircraft safety, the location and operation of deicing facilities must follow the clearance and separation standards specified in AC 150/5300 - 13, Airport Design. These standards involve airspace, aircraft separations, FAA Technical Operations facilities critical areas, and Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) line - of - sight criteria. 94 The AC also explains these safety requirements in detail, emphasizing in each instance that they must be followed. EPA, however, does no t attempt to consider these safety imperatives and openly acknowledges that it did not gather sufficient information to evaluate these and other safety imperatives: Since ERG does not have sufficient information to evaluate airport ground traffic patterns at the selected locations for deicing pads, the locations shown are for conceptual purposes only. In addition, ERG does not have sufficient information to consider issues such as existing underground utilities or soil types which may also preclude locating pads at the conceptual locations shown on the Google Earth diagrams. 95 EPA thus admits that it can have no idea whether pads at the “conceptual” locations could, in fact, be reconciled with the safety of ground operations or even whether the locations co uld support a safely engineered pad. Similarly, EPA does not consider the many safety - based design criteria for the pads themselves, detailed in Chapter 3 of the AC, including: • Separation standards for off - gate deicing pads (3 - 2), which ensure adequate provision for vehicle safety zones. • Criteria for deicing pad layouts (3 - 5),251 including the need to account for exiting jet blast (3 - 5(c)) to ensure continued effectiveness of applied deicing fluids. EPA’s Land Availability Analysis also ignores other safe ty imperatives implicated by the need to co - locate facilities that must accompany the deployment of deicing pads. For example, the cited Design of Aircraft Deicing Facilities AC, highlights that “to protect the performance characteristics of [ADF] from de gradation” storage and transfer systems must meet exacting design specifications and be appropriately sized to match airport - specific needs.96 EPA also does not consider safety issues associated with facilities necessary to meet the required storage of mil lions of gallons of stormwater that must be collected in conjunction with CDPs. Stormwater storage facilities also would need to be located consistent with FAA safety standards, e.g., outside runway protection zones.97 Response: See the response to CDP_ OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and section V.B.4 (BAT Options Selection) in the final rule preamble. CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 36 EPA’s Asserted Reasons for Foregoing Any Analysis of the Operational Impacts Associated With CDPs Do Not Withstand Scrutiny Despite its repeated acknowledgement of potential operational impacts, the Agency posits several “reasons” the impacts do not need t o be analyzed. In each case, these reasons do not withstand scrutiny. First, the Agency asserts that because complexities have been resolved at some airports “workable solutions . . . must be available” at all airports.145 This is not analysis but wishful thinking. EPA itself acknowledges that “workable solutions” to such operational issues at “many of the nation’s airports” simply are not available due to space and other constraints: Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and section V.B.4 (BAT Options Selection) in the final rule preamble. CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 37 Operational Impacts During Construction of CDPs The re cord is devoid of any discussion of potential operational impacts related to disruptions that will occur during construction of deicing pads. Indeed, the term “construction” is not once used in the Notice, TDD, EA, or EIB in the context of discussing envir onmental impacts.155 However, operational impacts during construction can be extensive as “airside” construction activities necessarily will affect activities. These impacts have several dimensions, safety being foremost among them,156 but also including f inancial and environmental (e.g., emissions, not only as a result of compromising the efficiency of aircraft or other airside vehicle operations, but of construction activity itself). [FOOTNOTE:156 AC 150/5370 - 2E, Operational Safety on Airports During Cons truction (January 17, 2003).] All of these dimensions must be taken into account in EPA’s analysis. Response: See the responses to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above)252 CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 38 Impacts Related to Activities that Support CDP Operations While it is far preferable to construct dedicated access roadways to ensure deicing trucks and other equipment are able to get to and from pads without using pavement dedicated to aircraft operations, it is possible at some airports these vehicles may need to cross taxiways or runways to access CDPs. Obviously, the associated safety and operational impacts would have to be evalua ted in the event this configuration is required. Even where dedicated roadways are constructed, transit times to and from the CDP, passability of dedicated roadways in winter weather (i.e., the burden associated with keeping them open), underpasses at runw ays and taxiways that have not been designed with sufficient clearance to accommodate today’s increasingly large deicing vehicles, and remoteness from vehicle service, crew rest stations and tankage for ADF and any recovered material all are critical issue s that airports studied by the Agency have encountered. Each of these affects the operability and efficiency of a CDP. Moreover, with the Proposed Rule encouraging airports to press nonpurpose - built areas of tarmac into service as “deicing pads,” support f unctions such as remote aircraft marshaling, aircraft queuing and egress areas, dedicated pad communications systems (visual and radio) and, perhaps, a remote tower must all be provided at locations not originally designed to accommodate them. Operational impacts of any workarounds necessary to re - purpose existing tarmac also qualify as impacts associated with any move to CDP operations. Airports studied by EPA currently are struggling with these operational constraints as well despite the fact that those d ifficulties are not reflected in EPA’s analysis. Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above) CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 39 Impacts on Aircraft Operations Are Routinely Modeled and Quantified

– (Necessarily) Preliminary Analysis Indicates the Impacts of Proposed Rule Would Be Substantial While analysis of the impacts on aircraft operations is both time con suming and resource intensive and, in that sense are anything but routine, the industry routinely performs such analyses, most often in conjunction with major infrastructure projects. Some examples at which such analysis has been done include the Capacity Enhancement Project at PHL, the New York/New Jersey/PHL airspace redesign, and the O’Hare Modernization Plan at O’Hare. That the industry recognizes the need to perform such costly modeling to assess and minimize the operational impacts of major infrastruc ture projects strongly reflects the reality that operational impacts of CDPs and other technologies that the Agency anticipates will be adopted under the Proposed Rule are real and that their careful assessment is a necessary prerequisite to a sustainable final ELG. It is not possible to prejudge the results of any such analysis. However, where

– as EPA concedes

– constraints on physical space and environmental factors effectively prohibit capacity enhancement projects, we believe any reasonable analysis is very likely to conclude they also effectively prohibit construction of CDPs. ATA strongly supports such an effort. Specifically, ATA believes that the Agency must

– with appropriate assistance from and deference to its expert sister agency, the FAA

– asce rtain the potential operational impacts associated with the use of CDPs at the major airports targeted under the Proposed Rule. Our purpose here is solely to demonstrate that modeling of operational impacts of the kind routinely performed by the FAA and by the industry itself in such circumstances can and must be incorporated as an element of the record underlying this ELG.253 Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above) CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 4 [T]o comply with both the Proposed Rule and FAA requirements and account for the fact that Boston Logan must use different departure runways at different times depen ding on the prevailing wind direction and weather conditions, Massport would have to build and operate a centralized deicing pad at each of the following three locations: (1) on the north side of the Airport to serve Runways 22L, 22R, and 15R; (2) on the e ast side of the airport to serve Runways 33 Land, 27; and (3) on the south side of the airport to serve Runways 4L, 4R, and 9. (Runways 14, 15L and 33R are minimally used during deicing conditions.)90 [FOOTNOTE: 90 See id., 13.] Such pads would be used in the following manner: • In a northeast wind, with departures from Runways 4L, 4R and 9, aircraft would use the southern pad. • In a northwest wind, with departures from Runways 27 and 33L, aircraft would use the eastern pad. • In a southeast wind, with dep artures from Runways 15R and 9, aircraft would use the northern and southern pads. • In a southwest wind, with departures from Runways 22L and 22R, aircraft would use the northern pad.91 [FOOTNOTE: [91 See id.] Significantly, because of the Proposed Rule’s 100% throughput requirement, each of these three pads would have to be built with the capacity to deice all aircraft departing during the time the winds remained from the particular direction requiring that pad’s use. As documented in the attached affidav it of David Ishihara, the Director of Aviation Operations at Boston Logan, who has ten years of experience in aviation management, there are three primary reasons why these three separate centralized deicing pads would be needed to assure safe and function al compliance with the Proposed Rule.92 [FOOTNOTE: 92 See id., 14 - 16.] The first reason is to minimize additional taxiing, because increased taxiing distance increases the potential for runway incursions and delay. Under Boston - Logan’s current deicing prac tices, each plane gets deiced at the gate and then taxis directly to its departure runway. If aircraft were required to taxi from the gate to a centralized deicing pad located in one part of the airport, then to a departure runway in another part of the ai rport, the number of runway crossings occurring during taxiing

– and thus the number of potential runway incursions

– would greatly increase. Further, such increased taxiing time would have the potential to delay departure times. However, if a deicing pad were located near the end of each departure runway, taxiing distance would be only slightly increased 89 However, as explained below and in the Ishihara Affidavit, even the three - pad scenario would still cause operational and safety problems at Boston - Loga n. See Ishihara Affidavit, 17. above current conditions, and the potential for increased runway (and taxiway) incursions could be minimized.93 [FOOTNOTE:93 See id., 14.] The second reason to have pads at each set of runway ends is to minimize the time betw een deicing/anti - icing and departure. As described above, pursuant to FAA requirements, aircraft have a limited window after deicing/anti - icing within which takeoff can be safely completed (the “holdover time”). Holdover times in some conditions are only a few minutes, so planes must be able to get from the deicing area to the departure runway in a short period of time.94 [FOOTNOTE: 94 See id., 15] The third reason for locating a pad at each set of runway ends is to prevent pad use from interfering with run way use. It would be difficult to locate one centralized deicing pad at Boston - Logan that did not cause intrusion into the ground surfaces and airspace protected by the FAA to ensure safe runway operation.95 [FOOTNOTE: .95 See id., 16.] Massport engaged CH 2M Hill, Inc., a leading engineering firm with specific expertise in airport design,96 to evaluate the feasibility of siting one or more centralized deicing pads at Boston - Logan to comply with both the Proposed Rule and FAA requirements. CH2M Hill’s evalua tion (hereinafter the “CH2M Hill Deicing Pad Report”) confirmed Massport’s operational conclusion that Boston - Logan would only be able to meet both the Proposed Rule’s requirement for centralized deicing pad deicing of all departing aircraft during all wea ther conditions requiring deicing (that is, 100% throughput) and FAA requirements if it were to construct three254 centralized deicing pads, to the north, east and south of Boston - Logan’s terminal areas.97 [FOOTNOTE: 97 See generally “Analysis of Centralized Deicing Pad Feasibility at Logan International Airport,” prepared by CH2M Hill, Inc., dated February 24, 2010 (hereinafter “CH2M Hill Deicing Pad Report”) (attached as hereto as Exhibit 4).] CH2M Hill determined that the southern pad could be an expanded v ersion of the existing Juliet “Pad,” a paved area bounded by Taxiway J to the north, Runway 14 to the south and Taxiway J1 to the east that is currently used for off - gate deicing. However, because of the lack of available, usable space within Boston - Logan ’s existing footprint (except for a small triangle in the southeast corner of the airfield, as illustrated in Figure A above and Figures 3A and 3B attached), the only possible locations for the northern and eastern pads

– at the end of Runway 22R, and at t he end of Runway 33L, respectively

– would require creating additional space by filling of approximately 160 acres of Boston Harbor tidelands. See Figure 7. [See figure in Massport submittal 1228.1] Specifically, the CH2M Hill Deicing Pad Report first dete rmined that to handle BostonLogan’s existing fleet mix and operations and meet the Proposed Rule’s 100% throughput requirement, a centralized deicing pad or pads would need to accommodate a maximum of 41 departures per hour during light deicing conditions, 98 [FOONOTE: 98 See id. at pp. 3, 4. Aircraft deicing was assumed to be that required during “light deicing conditions,” that is, conditions under which deicing is required to remove, slush, ice or frost from aircraft critical surfaces such as wings, contr ol surfaces and engine inlets, but (1) that do not result in runway closures or significant cancellations, and (2) under which departure rates are maintained at near the level of peak departure rates in good weather. Based on discussions with Massport avia tion operations staff, as discussed below, it was assumed that in conditions heavier than such light deicing conditions, departures are constrained by airfield limitations and reduced schedules rather than the FAA - imposed requirement to deice, with the re sult that such light deicing conditions represent the most conservative, and therefore the appropriate, scenario to use for purposes of properly sizing a centralized deicing pad for Boston Logan. See id. at p. 4. According to Massport aviation operations s taff, based on their experience with deicing at Boston - Logan, total time through the pad (including maneuvering into and out of position and communications with the deicing crew and the air traffic control tower), would be approximately 15 - 20 minutes durin g light deicing conditions. See id.; see also Ishihara Affidavit, 23.] and be sized for four (4) Airplane Design Group (“ADG”) Group I/II, eight (8) Group III, two (2) Group IV and one (1) Group V aircraft, for a total of fifteen deicing positions.99 [FOOT NOTE: 99 See CH2M Hill Deicing Pad Report at pp. 4 - 5. Each ADG is a grouping of airplanes based on wingspan or tail height. See Table 1 - 1 of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300 - 13, Airport Design.] In addition, it determined that to handle Boston - Logan’s projec ted 2020 fleet mix and operations100 [FOOTNOTE: 100 The year 2020 was selected as the representative future year for purposes of the capacity analysis in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular No. 150/5300 - 14B, Design of Aircraft Deicing Facilities, which s pecifies the use of a 10 - year planning period for proper pad sizing. See CH2M Hill Deicing Pad Report at p. 3. The 2020 fleet mix was assumed to mirror the representative current fleet mix. See id.] and meet the Proposed Rule’s 100 % throughput requirement , a centralized deicing pad or pads would need to accommodate a maximum of 48 departures per hour during light deicing conditions and be sized for five (5) Group I/II, nine (9) Group III, two (2) Group IV and one (1) Group V aircraft, for a total of 17 dei cing positions.101 [FOOTNOTE: 101 See id. at pp. 5 - 6.] The CH2M Hill Deicing Pad Report designed deicing pads that would comply with the Proposed Rule and all applicable FAA requirements, including FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300 - 13, Airport Design, and FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300 - 14B, Design of Aircraft Deicing Facilities. This included designing each deicing position to have, for example, 12.5 foot wide Vehicle Maneuvering Areas and a 10 foot wide Vehicle Safety Zone for mobile deicing vehicles, and eac h pad to have additional space for storage and staging of support equipment such as mobile deicing vehicles and water and deicing fluid storage tanks, and a deicing ramp control building.102 [FOOTNOTE: 102 See id. at p. 6.] Assuming that runway utilization during light deicing conditions would mirror Boston Logan’s historic runway utilization during winter weather conditions, as described above, the CH2M Hill Deicing Pad Report identified and evaluated the following three conceptual locations for centralize d deicing pads at Boston - Logan (the “three - pad scenario”): • North Pad: The North Pad would include 17 deicing positions laid out in accordance with FAA requirements, a 91,000 square foot support facility pad to255 provide staging areas for equipment, materia ls and support facilities and a 2,805,000 square foot spent ADF collection area (including a 500,000 square foot snow storage area), for a total pad area of 2,896,000 square feet. Because the North Pad’s purpose would be to deice all aircraft departing fro m Runways 22L, 22R, and 15R, and because of the lack of existing, open land area in the vicinity of the ends of those runways, it was determined that the only possible location for the North Pad would be in the Boston Harbor (Winthrop Bay) tidelands near t he approach end to Runway 22R, as shown in Figure 7. [See figure in Masspport submittal 1228.1] In fact, to build the North Pad, about 3,609,660 square feet, or approximately 83 acres, of tidelands would need to be filled or altered.103 [FOOTNOTE: 103 See id. at pp. 7 - 8. Figure 3B (attached hereto) illustrates that there is no available space within the Boston - Logan airfield to fit a centralized deicing pad containing the 17 deicing positions that would be required to comply with the Proposed Rule and FAA r equirements. The only area on the Boston - Logan airfield where development or construction would not interfere with runways, taxiways or FAA navigational aids is shown in orange (i.e., the small triangle in the southeast corner of the airfield), while the a rea would be required by a 17 - deicing position centralized deicing pad is shown in darker blue.] A theoretical layout for the North Pad is shown in Figure 8.[See figure in Massport submittal 1228.1] • East Pad: The East Pad would also include 17 deicing po sitions, a 91,000 square foot support facility pad and a 2,805,000 square foot spent ADF collection area (including a 500,000 square foot snow storage area), for a total pad area of 2,601,000 square feet. Because the East Pad’s purpose would be to deice al l aircraft departing from Runways 33L and 27, and because of the lack of existing, open land area in the vicinity of the ends of those runways, it was determined that the only possible location for the East Pad would be in the Boston Harbor tidelands near the approach end to Runway 33L, as shown in Figure 6. [See figure in Massport submittal 1228.1] In fact, to build the East Pad, about 3,330,570 square feet, or over 76 acres, of tidelands would need to be filled or altered.104 [FOOTNOTE: 104 See id. at p. 8.] A theoretical layout for the East Pad is shown in Figure 9.[ See figure in Massport submittal 1228.1] • Expanded Juliet Pad: The Expanded Juliet Pad would be an expanded version of the Juliet “Pad,” an existing paved area in the Runway 14 overrun area that is bounded by Taxiway J to the north, Runway 14 to the south and Taxiway J1 to the east, and currently used for limited off - gate deicing. This pad should have 17 deicing positions, as described above, to comply with the Proposed Rule and deice all air craft departing from Runways 4L, 4R, and 9. However, due to the anticipated difficulty in obtaining the required environmental permits and approvals, CH2M Hill evaluated the maximum possible theoretical buildout of the Expanded Pad Juliet within Logan’s ex isting geographic boundaries, so as not require any expansion into, placement of fill in or alteration of Boston Harbor tidelands. As a result, the evaluated Expanded Juliet Pad would contain only nine deicing positions, rather than the 17 that would be re quired to accommodate either the existing or the projected 2020 peak departure rate.105 [FOOTNOTE: 105 See id.] A conceptual layout for the Expanded Juliet Pad is shown in Figure 10. The Expanded Juliet Pad would be laid out in accordance with FAA requirem ents for deicing facility design. However, due to space constraints, and because the pad would be located in an area of the Boston - Logan airfield that encompasses the Runway 14 - 32 RSA and critical FAA air space surfaces for Runway 9 - 27, all support facilit ies at the Expanded Juliet Pad would have to be portable so that no equipment would remain at the pad when deicing activities have been completed. Temporary support facilities would include a mobile control center, parking areas for deicing trucks, water t rucks and mobile deicing fluid storage tankers, and portable lighting.106 [FOOTNOTE: 106 See id. at p. 9.] Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above)256 CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 5 Constructing the three pads necessary for Boston - Logan to fully comply with EPA’s 100% throughput requirement is not feasible. Obtaining the necessary federal, state and local p ermits to fill over either 76 acres of Boston Harbor to construct one new deicing pad, let alone permitting the filling of approximately 160 acres that would be needed for two pads, is simply unachievable. As documented in the Affidavit of Stewart Dalzell, Massport’s Deputy Director of Economic Planning and Development, seeking to fill just 76 acres of Boston Harbor for one pad would be unprecedented in the modern era of environmental regulations.107 [FOOTNOTE: 107 Affidavit of Stewart Dalzell, Massport Dep uty Director of Economic Planning and Development, dated February 23, 2010 (hereinafter “Dalzell Affidavit”) (attached as Exhibit 3), 6 and 7. As Massport’s Deputy Director of Economic Planning and Development, Mr. Dalzell oversees Massport’s efforts to ob tain the environmental permits and approvals for its development projects. He has been in this position for nearly ten years and has over 20 years additional experience in preparing local, state and federal environmental filings including both aviation and marine projects. See id., 1.] It would require no fewer than ten (10) environmental permits from federal, state and local agencies, including at least two rarely - granted variances.108 [FOOTNOTE: 108 See id., 4 and 6.] Moreover, many of these environmental permit requirements require full mitigation, including replacement of all wetlands and tidelands to be filled in at least a one - to - one ratio, and probably more.109 [FOOTNOTE: 109 See id., 7.] Boston - Logan would need, at a minimum, to construct approximate ly 160 acres of replacement wetlands in or around Boston Harbor. Additionally, those replacement wetlands would need to be constructed far enough away from Boston - Logan to comply with FAA regulations preventing wetland mitigation projects near airports, wh ich have the potential to increase risks of airplane collisions with birds or other wildlife attracted to the replacement wetlands. It is unrealistic to believe that Boston - Logan could comply with these mitigation requirements.110 [FOOTNOTE: 110 See id.] B y contrast, Boston - Logan is currently in the process of seeking the environmental permits to fill less than five acres of Boston Harbor to construct RSA improvements at the end of two runways at Boston - Logan. This project, which involves filling a mere 4% of what would need to be filled or altered to build the North and East Pads, will take over five years and cost over $3 million to permit. Moreover, to reduce and mitigate impacts from this runway safety project, Boston - Logan has taken the extraordinary s tep of proposing to construct the RSA on a pile - supported deck (capable of supporting a fully - loaded Boeing 747 - 400) rather than a filled structure.111 [FOOTNOTE: 111 See id., 4 and 7.] In sum, it is simply not achievable for Boston - Logan to obtain the en vironmental permits necessary to construct new deicing pads in Boston Harbor, let alone comply with the extensive mitigation measures that would be required. Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 a nd 1226.1 - 36 (above) CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 9 As detailed in the attached Affidavit of Director of Aviation Operations David Ishihara, Massport evaluated the few areas of op en space on or adjacent to the airfield and determined that there is only one feasible location for siting a centralized deicing pad, the location of the existing Juliet Pad.118 [FOOTNOTE: 118 See id. 18 - 23.] In most of the airfield, the complex layout of runways and taxiways leaves insufficient room for a centralized deicing pad. There are only a few possible exceptions, and each poses certain difficulties that would make it infeasible for a pad location: • General Aviation or Cargo Aprons: These areas are too congested with ground service equipment and aircraft, and are too far from257 the departure ends of the three sets of runways used during deicing conditions, to represent feasible pad locations.119 [FOOTNOTE: 119 See id.,20.] • Governors Island: Boston - L ogan also evaluated placing a centralized deicing pad in the Governors Island area, between the approach ends of Runways 4R and 32. However, this would interfere with FAA aeronautic navigational aids (“NAVAIDs”) and FAA - protected ground and airspace (i.e., “FAA critical surfaces”). In addition, there would be a potential for runway incursions due to the placement of runway and safety area crossings for aircraft and vehicles traveling to and from this pad. Finally, the only runway this pad would efficiently serve is Runway 4R, which could be served by the Expanded Juliet Pad.120 [FOOTNOTE: 120 See id., 21.] • Taxiway C: The Taxiway C area is midfield between Taxiways C, F and G, and Runway 4R/22L and near the departure ends of Runways 33L and 27 (see Figure 2 ). Operational issues make this location infeasible. Because of Boston Logan’s planned realignment of Taxiway G, the Taxiway C area could accommodate only a small deicing pad with room for two or three aircraft. Further, placement of a centralized deicing pad in this area would require aircraft to cross at least two runways to reach the pad, increasing the chance for runway incursions, particularly in the poor visibility conditions that accompany winter storms. The Taxiway C location also is logistically di fficult for ground equipment (such as deicing vehicles) to reach and would require multiple runway crossings by vehicles, increasing the possibility of runway incursions.121 [FOOTNOTE: 121 See id., 22.] Thus, the only possible location for a centralized de icing pad is the existing Juliet Pad location. However, the use of the Expanded Juliet Pad as the only centralized deicing pad for all aircraft departing Boston - Logan would create unacceptable operational and delay problems. Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above) CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 10 The Expanded Juliet Pad was positioned and laid out in the only space within Logan’s existing footprint available for the construction of a deicing pad. However, because of these space constraints, the Expanded Juliet Pad would be located at the approach e nd of Runway 14, in the Runway 14 RSA between the runway and Taxiway J. As a result, use of the Expanded Juliet Pad would be limited to times when Runways 14/32 and 9/27 are not in use. More particularly, the Expanded Juliet Pad could not be used when Runw ay 14/32 is open, because aircraft in deicing positions would violate Runway 14/32 RSA and Runway OFA criteria, and Runway 14 is used as a taxiway during deicing. In addition, vertical objects on the Expanded Juliet Pad would penetrate FAA critical airspac e surfaces for Runway 9/27, so the pad could not be used when Runway 27 is active or when Runway 9 is being used for arrivals. These runway incompatibilities would require Expanded Juliet Pad to be closed and all aircraft to be deiced at the gates when nor thwest wind conditions dictate the usage of Runways 27 and/or 32. The frequency of arrivals and departures during the peak deicing months in 2008 (January, February, March, November, and December) is shown in Table 3. [See figure in Massport submittal 1227 .2] Runway 27 was used for 37

– 43% of jet arrivals and 7

– 13% of jet departures each month. Runway 32 (which cannot be used for departures) was only used for 1

– 2% of jet arrivals during those months, but it is a crucial runway for smaller planes during northwest wind conditions. Thus, Expanded Pad Juliet cannot satisfy EPA’s requirement that 100% of deicing occur at a centralized pad. Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above)258 CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 12 These delays would also result in increased emissions of airborne pollutants. Massport engaged KB Environmental Sciences, Inc. (“KBE”), experts in a viation air emissions modeling, to estimate the amounts of greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) and other criteria air pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act that would be attributable to use of the Expanded Juliet Pad for deicing.132 [FOOTNOTE: 132 See generally “Memorandum

– Boston - Logan International Airport Deicing Pad Air Emissions Inventory,” prepared by KBE, dated February 17, 2010 (hereinafter “KBE Air Emissions Report”) (attached hereto as Exhibit 8). KBE assumed that all aircraft departing Boston - Logan d uring weather conditions requiring deicing would have to taxi to and from and be deiced at the Expanded Juliet Pad, as that hypothetical facility is described in the CH2M Hill Deicing Pad Report. See id. at p. 1. KBE did not try to estimate potential air e missions from aircraft auxiliary power units and ground support equipment (e.g., mobile deicing vehicles) associated with the use of the hypothetical Expanded Juliet Pad. See id. at p. 2.] The air emissions inventory presented in Table A shows the estimate d increases in emissions of GHGs and other EPA criteria air pollutants (in additional tons emitted per deicing season) that would be expected if all aircraft departing Logan during deicing conditions were required to use the hypothetical Expanded Juliet Pa d for deicing. More specifically, the results are reported for the EPA criteria pollutants and GHGs under the forecasted 2010 and 2020 “Low” and “High” utilization scenarios.133 [FOOTNOTE: 133 The aircraft operations and incremental aircraft taxi and queue times used in the assessment were provided by SH&E. See id. at p. 1.] [See submittal for table a with estimated deicing pad emissions] Notes: CO

– carbon monoxide, NOx

– nitrogen oxides, PM10/2.5

– particulate matter 10 and 2.5 microns, VOC

– volatile org anic compounds, CO2

– carbon dioxide, N2O

– nitrous oxide, CH4

– methane, CO2e

– greenhouse gases as carbon dioxide equivalents. In general, these findings indicate that the use of the hypothetical Expanded Juliet Pad for compliance with the Proposed Rule would result in an increase ranging from <1 percent to 5 percent in the amounts of GHGs and other EPA criteria air pollutants emitted at Logan during a deicing season, in relation to the current levels of such emissions (as presented in the Logan 2008 Envi ronmental Data Report (“EDR”),134 depending on the pollutant, year (2010 or 2020) and scenario (Low or High). Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above) CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centraliz ed deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 13 There are additional delay issues that were beyond the scope of the SH&E analysis. While the potential costs of these delays were not quantified, the delays could be signific ant. First, in addition to the queuing of all types of aircraft that would occur during peak departure times, SH&E determined that there could be additional times when more than just Group IV/V aircraft would have to queue due to a lack of slots of suffici ent size. Only two Group IV/V slots could be placed on the Expanded Juliet Pad due to the pad’s shape, but three Group IV/V slots would be required under both current and future conditions.135 [FOOTNOTE: 135 See CH2M Hill Deicing Pad Report at p. 6.] Table 4 [See table in Massport submittal 1227.2] shows January 2010 scheduled weekday departures by hour and aircraft group type. There are two hours each day with seven Group IV/V departures, and one with six. Assuming a deicing time of 20 minutes per plane, s ix is the maximum number of Group IV/V aircraft that could be deiced. Thus, these aircraft would be forced to queue during at least 2 - 3 hours of the day. The queuing could build up over multiple hours in the evening, when more large aircraft depart each ho ur because of international flights,259 as shown in Table 4.[See table in Massport submittal 1227.2] In addition, as shown in Figure 10 [See figure in Massport submittal 1228.1], one of the nine spots on Juliet Pad would have to be closed when additional snow storage space is needed. This capacity reduction could lead to additional delays. Further, increased taxi distances could increase the possibility that an aircraft would exceed its holdover time before takeoff, forcing it to return to the pad to be de - ice d again. In addition, the routes would involve more crossings of runways and/or taxiways and might create two - way traffic on taxiways, all of which have congestion and safety implications.136 [FOOTNOTE: 136 See Ishihara Affidavit, 23.] Finally, there would be a limited amount of space available on and near the Expanded Juliet Pad, which would lead to problems with aircraft movement. If the pad were full, aircraft could not wait at gates for positions to open up; they would have to be moved in order to accom modate arrivals and prevent inbound delays. Ground control would have to position these queuing aircraft along taxiways. This would cause congestion problems, which would be exacerbated if any aircraft had to return to the gate (e.g., if the crew exceeded its allowed hours, or if passengers had to be let off due to exceedance of time on the ground under new Department of Transportation regulations).137 [FOOTNOTE: 137 See id.] Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232 .1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above) CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 14 There are a number of problems caused by delay that are specific to Boston - Logan. Boston - Logan, as an “origin and destination” (rather than hub) airport, has a balanced flow of arrivals and departures, so constraints on departures also will affect arrivals. Also, because people are often flying from Boston Logan to hubs, departure delays may cause them to miss the ir connecting flight.138 [FOOTNOTE: 138 See id.] Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above) CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 15 [T]he Expanded Juliet Pad scenario presents the following aviation safety and operational issues: • Only mobile/portable deicing equipment could be used for deicing at the Expanded Juliet Pad, because the FAA requires RSAs t o be kept free of all permanent objects except those objects that need to be located in the RSA based on their function. Deicing equipment is not classified as vital to runway function so could not be located within the Runway 14 - 32 RSA. The use of mobile/ portable equipment only for deicing at the Expanded Juliet Pad would cause substantial logistical and delay problems and make the deicing process at the Expanded Juliet Pad less efficient compared to the conceptual North or East Pads or to existing permane ntly fixed centralized deicing pads such as those at Pittsburgh International, Denver International and Dulles International Airports (these airports, which are not subject to the same space constraints as Logan, were able to locate their centralized deici ng pads sufficiently far away from their departure runways to allow permanent structures). For example, permanent storage tanks for unmixed deicing fluid and water could not be located at the Expanded Juliet Pad because the Runway 14/32 RSA must be kept fr ee and clear of equipment. Remote location of these tanks would increase deicing truck cycle time and slow down the deicing process because deicing trucks would have to leave the pad to260 refill. Moreover, any time the FAA required the opening of any of the runways incompatible with the use of the pad, all aircraft, vehicles, equipment, and other objects would have to be immediately removed from the pad. If the pad could not be cleared in the necessary time, disruption of air traffic control and safety concer ns would result. For example, without fixed storage tanks for water and deicing fluids, deicing vehicles would have to leave the pad to refill their tanks, resulting in delays and increased congestion (which in turn poses safety and runway/taxiway incursio n concerns). Also, given Boston Logan’s space constraints, it would be difficult to find a location near the pad to store all of the mobile equipment.139 [FOOTNOTE: 139 See id.; see also CH2M Hill Deicing Pad Report at pp. 11 - 12.] • Taxiway J and Runway 14 would have to operate as taxilanes during deicing operations. • Due to space constraints, Taxiway J northwest of Deicing Position 8 would be restricted to Group III or smaller aircraft taxiing to Deicing Positions 1 through 7, and Deicing Position 1 throu gh 7 would be limited to Group III or smaller aircraft. • Due to space constraints, the vehicle service road between Runway 14 - 32 and the Boston Harbor (i.e., the perimeter road) would be temporarily closed to traffic when a Group IV aircraft taxied to Dei cing Position 8. • The Expanded Juliet Pad area would be designated as a non - movement area (i.e, not under direct Air Traffic Control Tower control) during deicing operations, which would allow for closer spacing of the aircraft deicing position centerline s in accordance with Table 3 - 1 of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300 - 14B, Design of Aircraft Deicing Facilities. • The Expanded Juliet Pad would require a snow storage area. However, the northwest end of the pad would be the only available area where Massport equipment could place snow removed from the rest of the pad. As a result, Deicing Position 1 would be lost to additional snow storage if the amount of snow accumulation on the pad required it.140 [FOOTNOTE: 140 See CH2M Hill Deicing Pad Report at pp. 11 - 12 .] • The Amelia Earhart Terminal is located just across Taxiway Juliet from deicing positions 8 and 9. This terminal was previously occupied by FBO Signature Flight Support, then American Eagle Airlines. It is currently used as a contingency facility for u nscheduled operations such as international diversions, bomb threat aircraft and humanitarian flight missions. Both the Earhart Terminal and the aircraft ramp along Taxiway Juliet are expected to be used on a regular, full - time basis again in the future. I t is most likely that, due to gate constraints at Boston - Logan Airport, a regional airline would be relocated to the Earhart Terminal. This would require direct and unimpeded access to and from the Terminal by aircraft, as well as ramp enplaning and deplan ing of passengers. The latter could pose a health and safety risk for passengers exposed to major deicing operations in close proximity. • Some of the marking required to delineate taxi paths and deicing positions on the Expanded Juliet Pad would conflict with FAA requirements regarding runway and taxiway marking. Boston - Logan would have to use temporary markings or obtain a modification from the FAA.141 [FOOTNOTE: 141 See Ishihara Affidavit, 23.] Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EP A - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above) CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 17 We request the ELG include the flexibility to allow airports to choose whether to have s ingle or have multiple deicing pads to account for different sections of the airport and different aircraft types. For example, airports required to use a centralized pad should be allowed a threshold for the size of planes that are required to use it. Sma ller planes, Design Group I and II, do not mix well with larger Design Group V aircraft. We recommend that an airport have the flexibility to allow Design Group I and II aircraft to deice off a centralized pad and require the use of a Glycol Recovery Vehic le for that fluid.261 Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above) EPA notes that it did not establish uniform performance requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing fac ilities, therefore this comment is no longer relevant to the final rule regarding existing dischargers. For new sources, EPA has modified the final rule text to include flexibility in demonstrating compliance. For airports with or considering CDP techno logy, final rule §449.20(a)(1)(i) specifies that deicing pads be sited and designed in compliance with FAA advisory circulars, which would not preclude the use of single or multiple deicing pads. Alternatively, an airport permit can specify alternative te chnologies or alternative specifications for existing technologies in place at the airport under §449.20 (a)(2)(i). CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 31 There are many other operational issues associated with off - gate deicing facilities that should be evaluated. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Aerospace Division publication Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) 4902, Design and Operation of Aircraft Deicing Facilities, provides a list of operational considerations that SAE recommends addressing. The FAA looks to this resource for guidance in this area and the airports then must make certain that what is being proposed by the EPA would not interfere with imperative safety standard s. As the EPA states on page 8 - 2 of the TDD “(a) centralized deicing pad is a facility on an airfield built specifically for aircraft deicing operations. It is typically a paved area adjacent to a gate area, taxiway, or runway, and constructed with a drain age system separate from the airport's main storm drain system.” This assumes, again, that there are areas on an airfield that can accommodate this installation as well as assumes there are additional costs which need to be accounted for with appropriate d rainage systems. The EPA also states in the same section (page 8 - 2) of the Technical Document, that centralized pads are superior to gate deicing because it “moves aircraft from the gate areas, thereby opening gates for arriving aircraft”. This is not the only operational implication of pad construction however. Even greater operational issues are produced when deicing pads are considered, and are of course, airport - dependent. When the EPA states on Page 8 - 2 of the TDD that “(a)nother benefit is that pads a re commonly located near the heads of runways, where planes can be deiced just prior to takeoff” it does not acknowledge the operational impact that may ensue if more deicing pads are required at this very critical, highly - sensitive area of the airport. Ac cording to Section 1 - 1.b.(1) of FAA’s AC 150/5300 - 14B, Design of Aircraft Deicing Facilities, issued on February 05, 2008 “(c)entralized deicing facilities, where aircraft receive deicing/anti - icing treatment, can be constructed at numerous sites with inc reasing constraints toward departure runways”. There are several issues related to safety and operations that are involved with this placement. If deicing operations are being conducted at the gate, there are frequently additional infrastructure costs asso ciated with this as well. We are again concerned that these costs (adequate storage, piping, containment and shipping off - site) were not taken into consideration when estimates were provided in this proposal. Any current construction projects must consider future additions to be planned at the airport. A pad cannot be placed at the end of a runway without regard to the airport master plan and future needs, anticipated or not, of the airport to expand. Deicing operations are of course seasonal. It would not be economically, operationally or environmentally sound to create operational blockages (such as the addition of an unnecessary deicing pad especially on a land - constrained airport location) during all remaining seasons. Airports dealing with tarmac delays are constantly seeking to ameliorate this issue. Adding to this crowded predicament, when it may only add a negligible environmental benefit is not advantageous to anyone. An increased taxi/idle out time caused by an operational blockage would have the po tential to increase pollutant emissions, transferring one environmental issue to another.262 Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above) CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad opera tional impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 10 Airport operation is shared among multiple parties. The Port Authority is the operator of its airports, but the airlines and FAA, not the Port Authority, control key aspects of the airport operations. Although the airlines serving the Port Authority airpor ts are subject to slot restrictions, the airlines otherwise control their schedules, as well as the type of aircraft they fly. Hourly aircraft operations and aircraft fleet mix are two key factors in the design of deicing pads, factors that were not consid ered by EPA (as discussed in our later comments). Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above) CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 104 Effects of Deicing Pads on Aircraft Movement and Delay In general, requiring deicing to occur at a common location shifts the focus of aircraft demand, and the associated queues, to that location. With a deicing pad, the pad and lev el of aircraft access to and from the pad influence the departure capacity of the airport. If a pad or pads can be sized to handle all hourly departures, and if the facilities can be located such that they do not interfere with taxiway flows, runway access , or the operation of the airfield, the impacts on delay might be minimal. However, we have already shown (in prior comments herein) that our airports do not have adequate land area for deicing pads to handle all hourly departures.237 In addition, we have shown that the taxiway systems at our airports are not configured to allow easy access between the passenger terminal area and proposed deicing pads, and between proposed deicing pads and the runways. (These issues are reflected in the ERG supporting analy sis of land availability for deicing pads at LGA and JFK. That analysis placed the “potential” deicing pads at those airports on top of taxiways, and chose locations that in some instances could result in multiple crossings of active runways.) The followin g is a qualitative discussion of some of the potential delay impacts that could occur. The comment period does not allow us enough time to study these issues quantitatively, using complex and expensive modeling systems. Longer aircraft queues. Aircraft wou ld wait in line to use a deicing pad. Departing aircraft wait in line on taxiways to take off from our airport runways now, but placing a deicing pad in the middle of those queues is not feasible, as it would make the lines move more slowly. The reasons fo r this slower movement include the time required for deicing (often a half hour or longer) and the limitations of our taxiway systems, among others. Depending on the location of the deicing pad, a longer queue could interfere with aircraft taxiing. For exa mple, aircraft using the pad location the ERG study placed near Runway 4 at LGA would have to form a queue on Taxiway B. Aircraft lined up on Taxiway B would at some point interfere with movement in the central terminal area. At JFK, aircraft arriving on R unway 4R must cross 4L to reach the terminal area, and any aircraft queued on taxiways in that area would interfere with the arriving aircraft. At EWR, a deicing pad at the south end of the airfield would likely displace the multiple taxiway access routes currently provided to Runway 4L, and aircraft would queue on Taxiways B, D, and PA behind the pad. Aircraft from Terminal C already would have263 been deiced at a pad near that terminal, but would not be able to bypass the deicing pad at the south end. It is clearly evident that ERG did not possess adequate information or knowledge to assess these operational realities and associated impacts. Gate holds. Aircraft would be held at the gate to wait for an assigned time to taxi to the deicing pad. The problem wit h gate holds is that our airports do not have excess gate capacity. Gates must be freed up within a certain period so that arriving aircraft have a place to go. If the gate is occupied, the arriving aircraft must wait, typically on a taxiway or in the pass enger terminal area. These additional waiting aircraft would again interfere with aircraft movement. Even with gate holds, taxiway queues would still likely form, because of the wide variation in times needed to deice aircraft of different sizes, combined with the limits of the taxiway configurations at our airports. Taxiing in excess of holdover times. FAA specifies a series of holdover times that relate to the type of deicing fluid used, the outside air temperature, and various weather conditions.238 If t he taxiing time exceeds the specified holdover time, the aircraft must be deiced a second time. Under the Proposed Rule, the aircraft would have to return to the deicing pad for the secondary deicing. Given the limitations of our existing taxiway systems, the aircraft could be stuck in the queue with no way to pass the other aircraft waiting behind it. The aircraft requiring the secondary deicing would be delayed, and that delay would ripple to other aircraft trying to depart. EPA has omitted the critical r equirement of FAA - mandated holdover time in its analysis, further reason why the Port Authority maintains this Proposed Rule cannot be finalized until the proper scope and level of analysis is conducted by EPA. Delays on pad. Delays could occur on the pad itself, for a variety of reasons. An aircraft on the pad could experience mechanical problems, or deicing might take longer than anticipated, holding up aircraft in the queue to access the pad. These delays would affect the aircraft on the pad, aircraft qu eued to use the pad, and potentially, aircraft at the gates. Loss of allocated slots. The success of the winter operations program at JFK is due to the careful assignment and tracking of aircraft departure slots. Under the current operation, if an aircraft exceeds its assigned slot time by 15 minutes, the aircraft is assigned a different slot, and other aircraft slots are reassigned. Deicing at the gates helps this system to work because there is always demand present for a reassigned slot. With all aircraf t using a deicing pad, there would be less flexibility to reassign a slot to another aircraft (because aircraft would be stuck in the queue). As a result, departure slots would be lost, and the capacity of the airport would be reduced further. Ripple Effec ts. The increase in delays from the use of deicing pads would effectively reduce the capacity of the airport. This reduced capacity could have additional effects. An airline serving one of our airports might have to cancel one or more flights, because the delays would interfere with the airline’s ability to meet its schedule requirements. A flight arriving at one of our airports might have to be diverted to an airport elsewhere, because there is no gate capacity for the arrival and the departure throughput has been reduced. Ground delays might occur at other airports, including airports not experiencing bad weather, because arrival times would have to be shifted to account for the reduced throughput. Each of these effects indicates, but does not fully addres s, the interactions between our airports and other airports in the U.S. and international systems. Additional impacts of aircraft towing. As noted previously, we have concerns about our ability to comply with the proposed 25 - gallon “safe taxi” limit for de icing at the gate. If an aircraft could not comply with the limit, it might have to be towed to the pad for deicing. The use of towing would compound all of the delay factors mentioned previously. This proposed requirement could create a scenario where a p ilot may want more than 25 gallons of ADF applied for safe operations. Whether compliance with this rule would preclude pilot judgment is not clear, but EPA must clarify this requirement before issuing a final rule. Associated environmental impacts. Increa ses in delay due to the requirement for deicing pads would lead to increased fuel use by aircraft and ground equipment. The increase in fuel use would result in increased emissions of criteria air pollutants, as well as emissions of greenhouse gases. EPA’s environmental analysis considered the air quality impacts related to an aircraft taxiing to and from a deicing pad and idling on the pad, but did not incorporate any estimates of aircraft delay.239 EPA incorrect assumption regarding offsetting benefit. As noted at the beginning of this section, EPA erroneously concluded that any delays occurring due to the use of a deicing pad would be offset, because each aircraft delayed could be replaced by another aircraft taking its place in the queue. This conclusion would have to be based on several underlying conditions: (1) the delay would affect only some (and not all) aircraft; (2) the delayed aircraft264 would be able to leave the queue, making room for the aircraft behind them; (3) the delayed aircraft would be ab le to return to the gate or some other location without interfering with aircraft movement; and (4) the other aircraft would be able to take immediate advantage of an open spot in the queue. EPA has not provided any support for its conclusion, and we belie ve that the requirement to use a deicing pad, combined with the lack of land and the airfield constraints at our airports, would make the underlying conditions unrealistic and infeasible. [FOOTNOTE: 224 Partnership for New York City, “Grounded, The High Co st of Air Traffic Congestion,” February 2009. Available at http://www.pfnyc.org/. The comments in this section are based in large part on the “Grounded” study. The Port Authority provided input to the report.] [FOOTNOTE: 226 Presentation by John Dermody, F AA New York Airports District Office, 2009 FAA Eastern Region Airports Annual Hershey Conference.] [FOOTNOTE: 227 Status of the Aviation Rulemaking Committee’s 77 Initiatives for Reducing Delays in the New York Area, ”Federal Aviation Administration, Octob er 21, 2009.] [FOOTNOTE: 228 Presentation by John Dermody, FAA New York Airports District Office, 2009 FAA Eastern Region Airports Annual Hershey Conference.] [FOOTNOTE: 230 Record of Decision (“ROD”), New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Air space Redesign, Federal Aviation Administration, Corrected Version, September 28, 2007. Accessed at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/nas_redesign/regional_guidance/eastern_reg/ nynjphl_redesign/ documentation/media/ Corrected_ROD_071005.pdf.] [FOOTNOTE: 231 F AA ROD, 2007, p. 6.] [FOOTNOTE: 234 http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nextgen/defined/what/, accessed February 5, 2010.] [FOOTNOTE: 235 Based largely on a meeting between Port Authority staff and Peter Gerlett, Product Specialist, PASSUR, November 19, 2 009; also Hitt, ] [FOOTNOTE: 237 As we noted previously, the inflexibility of the Proposed Rule makes it unclear how large the pads should be. Potentially, we would need to size the pads to handle hourly departures when throughput is high, because the Prop osed Rule requires that all deicing occur on a pad. From a practical standpoint, deicing pads should be sized to handle the (lower) expected throughput during winter storm. With such sizing, however, we would not be able to guarantee that all deicing would occur on a pad.] Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above) CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1234.1 - 3 In reviewing the docket, we have concluded that EPA believes that CDP locations may be arbitrarily situated on airports based solely upon the amount of land required for the facility. That is not the case; there are many factors that must be considered in placing any type of facility in proximity to a runway or taxiway, which are explained in FAA Advisory Circulars. Regarding aircraft deicing operations, ALPA believes that remote, departure end - of - runway inspection facilities, staffed with qualified personn el who can observe the exterior of the aircraft immediately prior to takeoff and who can communicate with and assist the pilot - in - command in determining compliance with "clean aircraft" Federal Aviation Regulations, should be provided at all air carrier ai rports where winter operations are encountered. Our primary objective is to ensure that the aircraft has been prepared in the FAA - approved manner, that it remains clean of snow and ice, and that it is in a condition to complete a safe takeoff. If this goal is accomplished through the use of a CDP, the location of that facility must not interfere with the safety of airport and flight operations. Response: EPA concurs that safety of aircraft operations during winter conditions is critical. See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above)265 CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1236.1 - 4 United also strongly concurs with ATA's comments with resp ect to the view that the Proposed Rule does not adequately assess and account for the operational impacts of the proposed mandates. Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above) CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 47 Some airports are so land constrained that it is impossible to install deicing pads, or even if theoretically possible, the resulting operational imp acts would so affect service or the economic impacts would be so severe as to make pursuing them completely impracticable. In fact, any change to an airport layout plan (ALP) would require FAA approval to ensure operational, safety, design and other FAA re quirements are being met. FAA simply will not approve construction of any deicing pad that compromises these requirements. At other airports, operational constraints alone may eliminate deicing pads as an option for collecting spent ADF. At Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD), one of the busiest airports in the world, deicing pads cannot meet the consistent operational demand. This reality was noted in EPA’s site visit report for ORD: “In the mid - 1990s, the [Department of Aviation] DOA considered ins talling aircraft deicing pads at ORD, but concluded that the very high number of operations made aircraft deicing pads impractical for ORD.”46 Many airports have analyzed the feasibility of installing deicing pads to collect spent ADF. Where deicing pads c ould be effectively employed, they have been installed. However, the fact that airports such as ORD studied and dismissed deicing pads as a feasible option because of operational or other constraints indicates that deicing pads are not always an available option. If any single analysis represents EPA’s overly simplistic approach to this proposed ELG, EPA’s February 7, 2008 memorandum, “Estimated Deicing Pad Areas and Deicing Pad Space Evaluation,” serves as a prime candidate. This memo demonstrates a comple te lack of understanding of airport operations, existing airport design needs, and the potential for EPA to cripple national air service through this proposed regulation. The analyses in this memo are fatally flawed for a number of reasons. As the memo its elf admits, EPA (and its contractor) did not have sufficient information to evaluate airport ground traffic patterns at the selected locations for deicing pads. This lack of information is, in our opinion, a significant flaw in the analysis and EPA’s decis ion to proceed with this proposed regulation without pursuing additional information is unconscionable. Appropriate information could easily be obtained via interviews with airport and FAA Air Traffic Organization representatives at those airports. Through a few phone calls, EPA could have identified common aircraft taxiing patterns and established whether proposed sites could reasonably be converted to deicing pads (which they could not). For example, such discussions would have likely eliminated all three of EPA’s proposed deicing pad sites at LaGuardia from further consideration because the taxiways within these areas are essential for the staging and sequencing of aircraft departures and for access to aircraft parking aprons. EPA also could have analyzed historic weather and airport operations data to determine which runway use configurations are most commonly associated with snow and icing events. Such analyses are essential to effectively siting deicing pads near the runway ends that are most likely to be used by departing aircraft during snow and icing conditions. Such an analysis is a more appropriate way to determine the number and size of deicing pads that would be needed at an airport than EPA’s averaging/ratio method outlined in the memo. In some c ases, these analyses may indicate only a single pad is needed; in other cases, due to variability in wind conditions in snow and icing conditions, it may be useful to have deicing facilities located at or near multiple runway266 ends. The memo lacks a sophist icated understanding of key issues including weather - related impacts to taxiing/take - off/landing, appropriate sizing/configuration of pads for appropriate usage, and other basic analyses any airport and FAA would demand as part of a “deicing pad implementa tion analysis.” The available sites for deicing pads identified in the memo also do not consider critical airport design criteria, including runway safety and object free areas, obstruction clearance criteria, navigational aid critical areas, and navigatio nal aids themselves. The size and shapes ascribed to these areas are accordingly grossly overstated. EPA’s proposed deicing pads near the departure ends of LaGuardia’s Runways 4, 31, and 13 are shown adjacent to runway edges, which would be impermissible u nder FAA design criteria. Moreover, the pads shown near the departure end of Runway 13 would interfere with taxiways that are critical to the staging and sequencing of departures during non - icing conditions. We would expect that EPA would coordinate with t he airport and understand FAA deicing pad requirements prior to proposing their use. At the very least, EPA should have interacted with FAA staff regarding this type of issue. Based on our discussions with FAA staff, they were asked by EPA to review the en tire Proposed Rule on an expedited basis (less than a week) immediately before EPA sought to publish the proposal. This certainly did not allow FAA adequate time to fully analyze the implications of the proposal, and we anticipate FAA will further address its concerns through formal comments. Further, replacing these taxiways with a deicing pad would almost certainly have considerable adverse operational consequences during the substantial part of the year when deicing is not needed at an airport that consi stently ranks among the three most delayed airports in the country. Similarly, the hypothetical pad near the departure end of Runway 31 would block access to two airport terminals -- US Airways and Delta -- as well as the runway end itself. The hypothetical pa d near the departure end of Runway 4 would be impermissibly located within instrument landing critical areas and would preclude use of Runway 4 for approach when in use. Similar issues exist with the hypothetical pad sites proposed for JFK and DCA. In the case of JFK, the proposed pad location would also require crossings of Runway 4L - 22R, which could have significant adverse consequences on airfield safety during winter weather conditions. It should be noted that none of these types of conditions exist at the three example airports cited in the memo (PIT, DEN, and DTW), where deicing pads are located well outside of movement areas, with appropriate, safe setbacks from active taxiways and runways in ways that do not interfere with airfield circulation or nav igational aids. Also, in none of these cases did deicing pads displace needed taxiway infrastructure. Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above). CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized dei cing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 49 The proposed hypothetical pads do not appear to have been laid out with any consideration for how aircraft would enter and exit the pads. Again at PIT, DEN, and DTW, the pads were designed specifically to accommodate "pull - through" use of the pad which is the most effective and efficient way to utilize such pads. The orientations of the hypothetical pads that are shown for DCA, JFK and LGA do not appear as though they would permit p ull - through use, which would reduce the capacity of these pads considerably and increase the overall pad size required for deicing operations. Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above)267 CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 50 The memo’s analysis also completely disregards any existing airport master plans and future development needs. Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above) CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 54 EPA does not address the fact that safety and operational factors may limit an airport’s ability to site deicing pads in many locations on the airfield. FAA guidance focuses on the fact that safety and operational needs are paramount to the design and operation of a deicing pad system. The AC specifically states that “[s]afe and efficient aircraft operations are of primary importance in the development of any aircraft deicing facility.”51 The AC recognizes the importance of “designing a [deicing] facility that is efficient and offers users operational flexibility .”52 EPA makes almost no effort to account for the safety and operational considerations associated with the design of deicing pads. EPA cannot possibly conclude that deicing pads are technologically achievable at all airports without taking into account t he type of safety and operational limitations recognized by existing FAA guidance. In fact, because of these limitations, FAA may prohibit or restrict their construction in many locations. Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above) CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 56 EPA Should Not Establish Deicing Pad Sizing Specifications. In sections 449.20(b)(1)(i i)(D)

– (F), EPA proposes technical specifications regarding the size of a deicing pad required to demonstrate compliance. First, as written, an airport could construct only one deicing pad in order to demonstrate compliance with the Proposed Rule. At many airports, multiple pads may be necessary in order to meet safety and operational needs. It may be preferable to construct multiple pads of varying size in order to accommodate different aircraft sizes. Depending on the airfield configuration, available sp ace, and operational needs, multiple smaller pads may offer more efficient deicing operations compared to a single larger pad. EPA’s single pad approach again demonstrates its unsophisticated knowledge of and approach to deicing issues pervasive in its Pro posed Rule. Those airports that may be subject to 60 percent collection requirements under the Proposed Rule (i.e., airports where 460,000 gallons or more of ADF is applied annually) undoubtedly face significant operational demands, which require more than one deicing pad. In fact, none the airports EPA has projected to already meet the 60 percent collection requirements currently rely on a single deicing pad. Again, EPA has not demonstrated that any airport relying on the specifications proposed, let alone using a single deicing pad, can collect 60 percent of available ADF. Further, EPA has not demonstrated that an airport with such a large number of operations, prompting the need to apply over 460,000 gallons of ADF annually, can rely on a single deicing p ad to meet the proposed collection requirements.268 Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above). Additionally, for the purposes of NSPS EPA has remove sizing criteria for deicing pad s. CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 59 EPA Confusingly Mixes Design and Operational Specifications. In proposed section 449.20(b)(1)(ii), EPA sets forth technical specifications for the “[o]peration of a centralized deicing pad collection system”(emphasis added). This language actually contains a combination of design requirements and operational requirements. The first three specifications could be considered operational in nature, addr essing where deicing must take place and the need to activate drainage valves before deicing. However, the other four specifications address design parameters, not operational technique. The size of the deicing pad and the requirement to equip the pad with a fluid collection system relate to how the pad is initially designed and constructed. These specifications cannot be altered through operational means. As we will later discuss, EPA should not establish specifications for sizing a deicing pad system. As an alternative compliance method, EPA allows “[t]he use of the same technology, but with different specifications for operation and maintenance.”54 It is unclear whether different design/construction specifications may be used or if all specifications may be different. Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above) Additionally, the technical specifications are to ensure that the deicing pads are sited and sized in a manner which will allow for collection of 60 percent of available ADF and are also only one compliance option. CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 60 EPA Should Not Require That All Deicing Be Conducted in Areas with Active Collection. EPA has proposed to require that all deicing activity should occur where ADF is actively collected by GRVs or deicing pads with an exception for deicing for safe taxiing. As long as an airport is meeting its percent collectio n requirement, we fail to see why deicing would have to occur where collection activities take place. Such a requirement will pose significant and unnecessary operational impacts. For limited purposes, it may be necessary to deice an aircraft away from a d eicing pad or GRV collection area. For example, it may not be reasonable to require certain types of operations such as general aviation and cargo to deicing at centralized pads, particularly because those aircraft generally operate out of separate areas o f the airport, away from main terminals. Further, morning defrosting activities are typically conducted before passengers even board aircraft to ensure flights are prepared for immediate departure during this busy, peak traffic time. As proposed, aircraft would have to taxi to a centralized pad for defrosting, then return to the gate to board passengers, luggage, cargo, fuel, and catering. Otherwise, a significant number of aircraft would require simultaneous defrosting immediately before departure. Both op tions have significant unintended consequences, environmentally and operationally. As long as an airport is complying with the imposed percent collection requirements, we fail to see the benefit of this specification, which may ultimately impart significan t impacts on aircraft operations.269 Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1, excerpt 17. In addition, only one NSPS compliance alternative requires that all deicing take place in an area where ADF is collected. I f a new airport decides that they have an alternate means of meeting the collection requirement they have other compliance alternatives which will likely be a better option for that airport. CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - excerpts 64 and 65 EPA Must Address the Operational and Safety Impacts of Deicing Pads. EPA mistakenly assumes “workable solutions” to the operational complexities associated with deicing pads are available because many airports have installed pads.55 While pads may function successfully at a number of airports, there are many airports at which the required installation and use of deicing pads would have significant operational and safety impacts, preventing their effective use. Moreover, as previously discussed, several airports lack sufficient land area to accommodate deicing pads at all. In determining that deicing pads are technologically available and economically achievable, EPA brazenly dismissed those impacts and their associated costs.56 [Footnote 56: The need to consider the costs associated with operation impacts is discussed in section II.G.1.] Deicing pads are not operationally feasible at many airports for a number of reasons. Deicing pads may not be able to accommodate high departure rates at busy airports with multiple runways. The number of aircraft that can be deiced at once is limited by deicing pad space available. This limitation can cause a choke in operations, significantly impacting airli nes, passengers, and the entire airspace system. As previously discussed, airports such as Chicago O’Hare International Airport have considered and dismissed deicing pads as a viable collection technology for spent ADF based solely on the resulting operati onal impacts. Because of airfield layout, available space, FAA safety restrictions, and other factors, ideal pad locations may not be available or authorized by FAA. Alternative locations can require additional taxiing, limited pad capacity, and possible s afety implications. Airports may have to construct deicing pads in locations that require aircraft to cross active runways, creating additional operational and safety impacts that are further exacerbated by winter weather conditions initially prompting the need to deice. Assessment of the operational impacts associated with the potential installation of deicing pads at the particular airports subject to the 60 percent collection requirements is critical to determining their technological availability. At a minimum, this assessment should consider (1) the proposed location of the deicing pads, (2) aircraft taxiing routes to and from the pads for all major runway use configurations that occur during deicing conditions, (3) the magnitude of aircraft and passeng er taxiing delays and congestion associated with deicing pad use, and (4) the number of additional aircraft and deicing vehicle runway crossings associated with deicing pad use. As proposed, EPA estimates a limited number of airports may be required to col lect 60 percent of applied ADF based on the use of deicing pads. According to EPA’s data, fourteen airports use more than 460,000 gallons of ADF, subjecting them to the 60 percent collection standard. EPA also assumes half of these airports already meet th e collection standard because they currently use deicing pads. By EPA’s determination, seven airports may have to install deicing pads to meet the requirements of the Proposed Rule

– four of which are highly - delay prone airports in the Northeastern US. It is a blatant analytical failure and obvious oversight for EPA to ignore the operational impacts associated with the installation and use of deicing pads at a mere seven airports. EPA did not so much as discuss, let alone analyze these operational impacts. EPA must consider the operational (and associated cost) impacts of deicing pads. This issue is exacerbated by the NSPS standards that will require many more airports to have to implement centralized deicing pads to achieve the NSPS standards. EPA must cons ider this other subset of airports in all of its analyses before finalizi ng any proposed rule.270 Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 (above) and section V.B.4 (BAT Options Selection) in the final r ule preamble.. CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1 - 4 The Proposed Rule states that one method of determining compliance with the collection standard for an airport with deicing pads, such as CAK, would be to comply with the seven requirements listed on page 44718. One of those requirements states: “Drainage valves associated with the centralized deicing pad shall be activated to collect spent ADF before deicing activities commence.” CAK ope rates a diversion valve associated with the two centralized deicing pads in a manner appropriate to meet current water quality based limits in our NPDES permit. CAK routes high concentrate deicer runoff to storage tanks upstream of AFB treatment, but may a llow lower concentrate deicer runoff to flow directly towards the outfall without going through treatment if the concentrations in the runoff will allow compliance with our NPDES permit limits. Therefore, on days with light deicing or frost deicing, there may not be enough ADF to warrant collection of the runoff from the pads. If CAK were to choose to demonstrate compliance with the collection standard by the method described on page 44718, it appears that the existing diversion valve would be required to b e set to collect runoff from the pads every time that deicing is occurring. The valve would then be open for more of the season than is currently required to meet NPDES limits. This would lead to greater volumes of runoff being collected in the storage tan ks than the conditions for which they were originally designed (current water quality limits). Therefore, to reduce the chance of storage overflows and upsets to water quality limits, additional storage would be required to meet the requirements of the Pro posed Rule for this method of compliance demonstration. Additional storage at CAK was not included in EPA’s description of the existing AFB system and the costs associated with that storage were also not included in EPA’s economic analysis. To avoid this a dditional infrastructure, we would likely have to use a more complex demonstration method than EPA appears to intend for systems using deicing pads. We would incur costs for that more complex demonstration. If it is EPA’s intent to streamline demonstration for facilities with deicing pads, the diversion valve requirement is a significant impediment to overcome. We therefore request that that item be deleted from the list of seven requirements on page 44718 of the Proposed Rule. Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above). Additionally, collection of ADF for defrosting is no longer required as part of the regulations. Should an airport feel that they are able to meet the 60% and not collect during “light deicing” they have an option to put forth that plan to a permit authority for approval under section 449.20(a)(2) . CDP_OP_IMPACT - Centralized deicing pad operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 8 EPA has no t adequately considered the significance of operational and safety impacts created by the proposed collection requirements. The use of both GRVs and deicing pads can considerably impact aircraft operations. At SLC, the current apron deicing pads will be ph ased out over a period of years as the end - of - runway deicing pads are constructed. In addition to the financial considerations of the phased end - of - runway projects, are the operational and safety impacts that require significant evaluation. At SLC,271 these p otential impacts have been carefully modeled by an engineering design consultant. A number of critical issues must be considered when impacting the flow of operations including fleet configurations, taxiing time, delays, fuel usage, holding times, etc. Mos t airfield construction projects will impact airfield operations; however, to construct one or more deicing pads on an active airfield has significant negative financial and logistical impacts to airport operations. There is no reference in the proposed ru le to inherent safety and operational impacts that will result due to the ELG requirements. These significant impacts will require serious research at each individual airport and must be addressed in the rulemaking. Response: See the response to CDP_OP_IMPACT Comment No. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 102 and 1226.1 - 36 (above) See Preamble Section IV.E for more discussion. COD_TRT_STD - Treatment standard for COD Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1199 - 7 EPA must use compliance monitoring effluent limitations based on the maximum concentrations rather than weeklv or monthlv averages. The use of weekly or monthly average effluent limitations for COD does not ensure that peak concentrations of ADF pollution are captured. Stormwater discharge from Airports is a storm - event specific occurrence, with the volume and concentration of ADF pollutants being highly variable depending upon factors such as the duration and intensity of winter weather; operation, mainten ance and effectiveness of controls; and the hydraulic conveyance and on - site retention capacity of the Airport (i.e..ponds). Compliance monitoring needs to capture the peak discharge CODconcentration in the stormwater to ensure that ADF pollution runofff i s mitigated before discharge off - site. Response: The setting of numeric effluent limits ensures that implemented treatment technologies are operating effectively. The effluent limits do not ensure that ADF collection is occurring. EPA’s NSPS requirem ents require that 60% of available ADF is collected and treated. The rule does not require that that “peak concnetrations" of COD are captured. However, given that the BAT basis is centralized deicing pads, any airport that implements that technology wil l likely be collecting the most concentrated ADF - laden stormwater, as that is what the system is intended to collect. EPA agrees that the amount of ADF collected by a particular technology can vary depending on a number of factors. However EPA has establ ished that a well operated CDP will, on average, collect at least 60% of available ADF. EPA agrees that compliance monitoring should identify the peak COD discharge concentration in the effluent. The establishes weekly average and daily maximum COD limit ations. See section VII.C of the preamble for more information. COD_TRT_STD - Treatment standard for COD Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1199 - 8 The use of on - line continuous reporting TOC monitors as a surrogate to the measurement of COD,if a correl ation with COD is established, should be considered. Given the variable nature of ADF stormwater discharge, consideration should be given to requiring facilities in this category to install and use on - line technology that allows for continuous (at least on ce per hour) readings of Total Organic Carbon (TOC). TOC instrumentation allows for periodic measurement ofthe discharge throughout the storm event, enabling the peak ADF containing runoff concentrations to be measured. Fairfax Water has used on - line TOC i nstrumentation at our drinking water intake for over 15 years and has confidently developed a strong correlation between glycol concentrations in the water and TOC measurements. Fairfax Water272 strongly recommends that EPA require the use of on - line TOC inst rumentation for compliance monitoring effluent limitations for the Airport Deicing industry. Response: EPA does not have any data reflecting on - line continuous TOC discharge monitoring, upon which an effluent limitation could be formulated. While Fairf ax Water may have developed a correlation between glycol and TOC, EPA does not know if that correlation is applicable nationwide or if it is applicable as a way to measure the effectiveness of the treatment technology. EPA has established COD standards fo r new sources in the final rule. The permit authority may specify the COD method that must be used to demonstrate compliance. If not specified by the permitting authority, a permittee may use any COD method approved in 40 CFR Part 136 for compliance moni toring. The TOC method specified above is not currently approved in Part 136, nor can it be used in place of COD monitoring required under the Clean Water Act. COD_TRT_STD - Treatment standard for COD Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208 - 16 EPA has proposed chemical oxygen demand (COD) as an "indicator pollutant" and test parameter to monitor compliance (versus BOD). The COD test does capture the impact on dissolved oxygen from deicing fluid compounds and additives, and it can be measured mor e in "real time" than the 5 - day BODanalytical method. It has also been used in numerous scenarios as a surrogate for BOD analysis. Therefore, we agree that the COD test be used. However, there are a variety of test methods available, including field test m ethods, for COD determination in stormwater runoff. Will EPA be identifying standardized, approved test methods for documenting this critical parameter? Response: The COD limitations in the final rule represent filtered COD (filtered sample prior to ana lysis) with analysis using a 40 CFR Part 136 approved COD method. The sampling frequency, analytical method and reporting procedures for COD sampling and analysis will be determined by the permit authority, as stated in Preamble Section XI.E. COD_TRT_STD - Treatment standard for COD Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 - 1 MSP does have storm water retention ponds that were designed and constructed to assist with solids removal prior to discharge to the local waterways. These ponds have the potential to be impacted by ADFs due to overspray, snow melt, wind disposition, or other factors. There is no GISW that is actively collected and diverted into these storm water ponds. The MAC does not believe the EPA intends that the discharge from these storm wat er ponds would be required to meet the COD limits proposed under §449.10(b); however, there is no definition of "collected runoff" and/or "on - site treatment" to provide permit writers with clarity regarding the EPA's intentions. The EPA should develop defi nitions that clearly state §449.10(b) and §449.11(b) applies to on - site treatment works that were constructed for the specific purpose of treating collected runoff that has been impacted by aircraft deicing operations and as part of a collection system to meet the percent collection criteria.273 Response: EPA has clarified this language in the final rule. The final rule states that the COD standards for new sources must be met at the location where the effluent leaves the on - site treatment system utilized f or meeting these requirements and before commingling with any other discharge. COD_TRT_STD - Treatment standard for COD Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1222.1 - 6 EPA should consider requiring on - line continuous reporting TOC monitors as a surrogate to the measurement of COD, if a correlation with COD is established, require compliance monitoring effluent limitations based on a maximum TOC value at the Airport discharge outfall(s). Given the variable nature of ADF stormwater discharge, consideration sho uld be given to requiring airport facilities covered by this rulemaking to install and use on - line technology that allows for continuous (at least once per hour) readings of Total Organic Carbon (TOC). TOC instrumentation allows for periodic measurement of the discharge throughout the storm event, enabling the peak ADF containing runoff concentrations to be measured. If EPA decides to implement TOC monitors as a possible monitoring method, the agency should keep in mind the limitations of these monitors as TOC and chemical oxygen demand (COD) are surrogates that measure the general characteristic of the water sample and not the actual concentrations of organic compounds or chemical compounds in the water sample. In the case of TOC and COD, the measured respo nses are a direct function of the reaction that occurs between an oxidant and another chemical. For example, TOC can be measured by high temperature oxidation in the presence of a catalyst or with UV/persulfate. While the two methods may produce similar re sults most of the time, the modes of oxidation are very different and can, depending on the mixture of chemicals, produce different results. Response: See the EPA response to (COD_TRT_STD) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1199, excerpt 8. (above) COD_TRT_STD - Treatment standard for COD Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 26 Given that the data utilized by EPA to develop the limitations was for soluble COD, EPA must clarify the limitations and define the analyte as soluble COD. As noted above, the analytical method for COD does not provide guidance for the filtration of the sa mple prior to COD analysis. For other EPA methods in which the dissolved or soluble phase of the analyte is to be measured, EPA has defined ‘dissolved analyte’ as the ‘concentration of analyte in aqueous phase that will pass through a 0.45 μm filter.80 EPA should adopt this definition and define S COD (soluble COD) in the rule as that COD in aqueous phase that will pass through a 0.45 μm filter. Response: See comment code BAT_COD response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 108. COD _TRT_STD - Treatment standard for COD Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1 - 6 In the Proposed Rule, EPA sets chemical oxygen demand (COD) limits of 271 mg/L daily maximum and 154 mg/L weekly average in effluent discharged from treatment systems to s urface waters. Throughout the Proposed Rule and supporting documents, the limits are described simply in terms of COD without274 explaining whether the basis for that measurement is total COD or soluble COD, an important distinction. EPA must clearly explain whether total or soluble COD data was used as the basis for establishing the COD limit and whether total or soluble COD is the intended effluent limit parameter. In addition, the difference between these two parameters must be reconciled in EPA’s analysis. The issues relative to specification of Total or Soluble COD are as follows: • The effluent data from the ALB AFB used by EPA was in terms of Soluble COD • The selection of the AFB as BAT by EPA appears to be based strictly on the AFB bioreactor and the s ystems that support the biological activity. Handling of biosolids is a separate technology, as evidenced by the ALB system where the solids handling systems are not directly connected to the AFB. No reference is made to solids handling systems in the draf t rule. • If the effluent limit were specified in terms of Total COD, provisions would need to be made by an airport for a solids handling system. There is no information to suggest that costs for solids handling (which are very site specific) are included in EPA cost estimates. • Because of the high concentrations of deicer in runoff at CAK, it is expected that Total COD concentrations from the CAK AFB would be higher than Total COD concentrations from the ALB AFB system. • Local permitting authorities may base NPDES effluent limits on Total COD, instead of Soluble COD, which would impose a more restrictive discharge limit on CAK than U.S. EPA may intend. Details of the analysis of the Soluble COD issue are presented below. Soluble COD is the parameter used by CAK to measure the performance. Soluble COD is used because: • The freezing point depressants in aircraft deicing fluids (propylene glycol, ethylene glycol, glycerin) are highly soluble. As a result, the COD in the stormwater collected from airports is almost entirely soluble. Only small amounts of suspended solids typically result from wash off of non - deicing pollutants. The draft ELG rule addresses only contaminants associated with deicing operations, not with non - deicer constituents associated with m aterials washed from the airport surface. • Total COD concentration measurements in the treated effluent, which include measurement of the biosolids fraction, are highly dependent upon treatment system flow rate. Treatment system flow rate can be highly va riable within a given AFB system due to the significant variation in influent soluble COD concentration and the need to operate the AFB systems at a near constant soluble COD load. We suspect that EPA unknowingly used soluble COD data in its analysis. The supporting document titled “Long Term Data from ALB with EPA Comments” includes the daily effluent concentrations from each of the anaerobic fluidized bed reactors at the existing ALB AFB treatment system. According to this document, the values for effluen t concentration are in “S COD (mg/L),” which we interpret to mean soluble COD. We have also confirmed with individuals familiar with the ALB system that the COD measurements taken and reported in the referenced document are, in fact, in terms of soluble CO D. EPA apparently used the soluble COD data to establish COD effluent limits and conduct cost - benefit analyses for the Proposed Rule. If implemented without clarification, this is leads to a number of problems. Such analyses result in a technically inaccur ate representation of AFB treatment system performance and inappropriately add a solids removal requirement to the BAT. Use of “COD” alone will likely be interpreted as “Total COD” by permit writers. Since EPA, in fact, used soluble COD as its basis for de velopment of the proposed effluent limits, any proposed limits should be in terms of soluble COD. Failure to make this change would be technically inconsistent and extend the basis for the treatment BAT from only the AFB unit itself to the biosolids handli ng system. Response: See comment code BAT_COD response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, excerpt 108. COD_TRT_STD - Treatment standard for COD Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1 - 10 Review of the CAK AFB system data showed that during the 2008

– 2009 deicing season, there were twenty instances during which the system effluent was over the 271 mg/L COD daily maximum limit in the Proposed Rule. According to the CAK data, the system was operating well and meeting its required275 water quality li mits during these instances. This reinforces the idea that even when the system is operated properly the effluent concentrations may still reach higher concentrations in some instances. CAK requests guidance on how to deal with the unusual situation where we could be issued compliance violations despite operating our system as designed. If forced to alter our operation (by treating less load) under certain circumstances during a deicing season, those alternations may decrease our available storage later in the season and result in a potential violation of water quality standards because we did not have enough available storage to collect the deicer runoff needing collection. Response: The final rule does not set uniform collection or treatment requirements for existing airports. As such, this comment is no longer applicable. COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1189.1 - 3 Paragraph 449.20 (b) (1) should be retained. The ability to demonstrate compliance and have that demonstration constitute compliance is a necessary feature that will prevent a lot of compliance headaches. An operator of a glycol recovery vehicle (GRV) who maintains the vehicle and operates it correctly may still find that capture of 20% of fluid is impossible, especially if modest amounts of fluid are used. Although the ramp may be moist, there is often too small an amount of fluid to be vacuumed. A large part of the fluid may evaporate between deicing. In those instances, the 20% capture requirement will not be met. The best the airport operator can do in that circumstance is to operate the vehicle as required. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform collection or treatment requirements of ADF at existing airports. Such req uirements will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. Further, the NSPS collection requirement is not based on GRVs. As such, this comment in not relevant to the final rule. COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1189.1 - 5 Provision for alternative means of compliance should be retained in the final requirement. The ability/flexibility to use a good idea or technology not available today is needed. Response: EPA agrees. The provisions of the fi nal rule include such flexibility. See Sections X.C. and X.D. of the preamble for additional information (implementation section). COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1199 - 6 The criteria for performance of BAT n eeds to be tied to specific permit limits. The use of Centralized Deicing Pads, identified in the proposal regulation as allowing airports to capture about 60% of the available ADF does not guarantee capture of 60% of ADF applied. Based on Fairfax Water's review of annual reports submitted to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, the Airport has reported capture of only 25% - 30% of the ADF applied.276 The Airport has the benefit of plugs and pumps, G round Recovery Vehicles (GRVs), and a Centralized Deicing Pad. Despite these management measures, effective use, operation and maintenance of these measures must also be tied to enforceable permit requirements. We are particularly concerned that the propos ed compliance methods identified in §449.20 will not be sufficient to achieve the required ADF capture. Without specific numeric permit limits to enforce these effluent standards, the effectiveness of various deicing fluid collection technologies at airpor ts will continue to fall short of what EPA estimates these technologies are capable of capturing. The proposed regulation needs to address this deficiency. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform collection or discharge requirements for ADF for existing airports. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. As such, comments related to the proposal to identify deicing pads as BAT at existing airports are not relevant to the final rule. However, the final rule does establish ADF collection requirements for certain new sources. The technology basis of such requirements is centralized deicing pads. For information on how EPA determined that centralized deicing pads can achieve 60% collection of available AD F, see the TDD. Additionally, while EPA determined the percentage of ADF that is available for collection (i.e., capable of being collected)), that number is likely to vary due to weather conditions and the amount of snow and ice that have built up on the aircraft. See sections IV.C.1 and VI.B.1 in the final rule preamble. This variability makes it difficult to set a numeric standard for the performance of an ADF collection technology. EPA has included the option for a permittee to show compliance by cert ifying that it is operating the applicable control technology in accordance with certain technical specifications as a means to account for this variability that is uncontrollable by the permittee. EPA has determined that in general, CDPs can capture 60% of available ADF if operated correctly. See chapter 8 of the TDD for details on this determination. COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1203.1 - 2 Especially in the warm climate of Florida, recovery of 20% ADF may be unobtainable due to evaporation during dry weather and other de - icing events. FAC recommends that the EPA establish alternative measures that can be implemented in lieu of the 20% recovery requirement or an exemption for certain deicing activities that cannot reasonably or practically meet the 20% recovery requirement. Response: The final rule does not set a uniform requirement for 20% collection of ADF. Also see response to COMP_DEMO, Commenter 1189 excerpt #3. COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208 - 17 Regarding documentation of ADF usage and collection, it appears that the proposed rule would require the permittee (i.e, airport authority) to tabulate, calculate and report this information to the permitting a uthority. Will EPA provide a standardized format for this documentation, or will this be left to the airport's or State permitting agency's discretion? Response: The final rule does not establish uniform collection or discharge requirements for ADF for existing airports. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. The final rule277 does establish collection and discharge requirements for certain new sources. See Section V.C. of the preamble for more information. For new sources, the final rule provides certain ways to demonstrate compliance with the NSPS collection requirement that do not require tabulating, calculating, or reporting ADF usage and collection. However, the final rule also includes provisions that all ow a new airport to elect to demonstrate compliance by tabulating, calculating, or reporting ADF usage and collection. Because such an approach is airport specific, the manner in which such information would be reported is appropriately determined by the p ermitting authority. COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208 - 18 Will the EPA's final ELG policy allow for an "Adaptive Management" approach to compliance at individual airports? For example, would the facility be allowed to evaluate the effectiveness of the previous year(s) programs and their impact on both source redu ction and reduced environmental impact? This approach would allow airports to adjust operating practices and BMPs in order to achieve compliance in a technically efficient, cost - effective manner. This adaptive management process could be carried out in con junction with state or local permitting authorities. Response: EPA has retained flexible methods for demonstrating compliance with BAT and NSPS in the final rule. These methods would allow an airport to take into account the effectiveness of its polluti on prevention methods (such as source reduction). See Section X.C. in the final preamble for further discussion of compliance demonstration. COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 - 12 MSP deicing tenants util ize deicing pads, plug and pump, and GRVs to facilitate GISW collection. It is unlikely that, in the near future, MSP will shift all deicing activity to pad - only operations. Therefore, it is a possibility that the MSP NPDES Permit will use the proposed alt ernative technology provisions in §449.20(b)(2) to demonstrate compliance. In this manner, the permit writer could evaluate and understand the suite of ADF collection technologies in place at MSP and establish adequate specifications and operating paramete rs to ensure the various technologies are operated in a manner to comply with the intent of the ELG. This method may be preferable to §449.20(b)(3) as it could reduce sampling burden and mitigate compliance uncertainty that is inherent in effluent limits i mposed on storm water discharges whose flow rates and discharge water quality characteristics are highly unpredictable due to the influence of weather events. The permitting authority would have the ability to review long - term data to determine adequate me asures that would indicate the system is being operated in the designed manner. It would not seem this ELG provision would be over - burdensome on permit authorities as they would likely work with airports and tenants to understand and develop appropriate sp ecifications and operating parameters for inclusion in future NPDES permits. The permittees would have a substantial interest in ensuring the permitting authority had a thorough understanding of the system, thereby assisting the permit authority and reduci ng some burden.278 Response: EPA agrees with the comment. It was EPA’s goal to offer flexible alternatives to demonstrating compliance to reduce burden to facilities and permit writers. EPA maintained this flexibility in the final rule. Additionally, the final rule does not set uniform requirements for collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports, and therefore MSP will not be affected by this portion of the regulation. Its BAT - based permit terms will continue to be set on a site - specific, BPJ basi s. COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 - 13 For those permittees that are seeking compliance measurement through §449.20(b)(3), the ELG requires the permittee (which may be the airport authority) to monitor and record the amount of ADF sprayed and collected. In virtually all cases, the airport autho rity is not the entity responsible for ADF application and relies on the deicing tenants to report this information. The ability for the airport authority to be in compliance with the ELG should not be predicated upon the cooperation and accurate reporting of a separate entity. The EPA should modify the ELG such that it directs the NPDES permit writer to address this dependency within an airport's NPDES permit and require that deicing tenants provide ADF application information to the airport authority and include deicing entities as copermittees. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform ADF collection or discharge requirements for existing airports. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. Monitoring applied and collected ADF is available as one alternative for demonstrating compliance with the NSPS collection requirement should the permittee choose to pursue that method. The permittee also has other means of complying that do not require tracking appl ied/collected ADF. The final rule does not address designation of co - permittees. Individual permit authorities may choose to designate co - permittees, such as airlines and FBOs, on a BPJ, case - by - case basis. If co - permittees are not designated in a new s ource permit, and an airport permittee chooses a compliance method that requires ADF tracking, the airport may establish reporting requirements through its own internal procedures that it imposes on its airline and FBO tenants. Also see response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208

– 17 in this comment code. COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1220 - 2 Additional guidance is requested for the development of the proper operation and maintenance of the technologies allowed un der the Alternate Technology or Specifications requirements, 449.20(b)(2). It would assist in the development of appropriate operation and maintenance requirements if the EPA provided some narrative requirements or references to some industry standards tha t address many of the different options that have already been considered. An example of a set of industry practice standards that might be appropriate would include those generated by the Airport Cooperative Research Program of the Transportation Research Board. Response: See the EPA response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1, Comment Excerpt 83. (below)279 EPA has referenced ACRP publications in the preamble of the final rule (see section X.I.) and ACRP publications are included in the rulemaking record. CO MP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1222.1 - 4 EPA should tie the criteria for performance of BAT to specific permit limits. AMWA and AWWA believe that absent specific permit limits to enforce these effluent guidelines that the effectiveness of various deicing fluid collection technologies at airports will fall short of what EPA estimates these technologies are capable of capturing. The proposed regulation needs to address this deficiency. For example, EPA’s proposal st ates that the use of Centralized Deicing Pads (CDP) can enable airports to capture about 60% of the available ADF. However, based on Fairfax Water’s review of annual reports submitted to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality by Washington Dulles International Airport, the airport has reported capture of only 25% - 30% of the ADF applied. In addition to the CDP, Dulles Airport also has other ADF management technologies onsite, including plug and pumps and Ground Recovery Vehicles (GRVs). However, de spite these management measures, the airport still falls short of EPA’s estimation for CDP. Therefore, we recommend that the effective use, operation and maintenance of these measures must also be tied to enforceable permit requirements. Response: See t he EPA response to comment (COMP_DEMO) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1199, Comment Excerpt 6. Additionally, the final rule does not set uniform ADF collection or treatment requirements for existing sources such as Washington Dulles. The requirements for Washington Dulles will continue to be set on a BPJ, site - specific basis. COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 16 Clarify Period Over Which Compliance with Collection Standard Must be Demonstrated First, the Proposed Ru le provides permit writers with no guidance as to the period over which an airport must achieve the compliance with the collection efficiency standard. EPA acknowledges that model collection technologies achieve significantly different collection efficienc ies in different storm events and even year to - year. Because the values deemed to be representative of the two model collection technologies (60% and 20%) are not the low ends of the ranges for each model collection technology, the standards must reflect t his documented variability. If they do not, facilities could be forced to attain collection efficiencies higher than those demonstrated to be achievable through use of the model technologies if the compliance period were not sufficiently long to allow that variability to be expressed. There are two approaches available to the Agency to address this problem. On the one hand, it could modify the Proposed §§ 449.10(a)(1) and (2) to include suitable durations consistent with the Record. On the other, it could r evise the numeric collection standards contained in those two sections downward sufficiently to reflect lowest documented collection efficiency of each model technology. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform ADF collection or discharge req uirements for existing airports. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. With respect to the NSPS collection requirement, EPA has consulted with FAA and determined that there are currently no new airports scheduled to be built at any time in the foreseeable future that would be within the scope of the280 final NSPS rule. As such, new sources will have ample notice to plan for the NSPS requirements and must achieve compliance at the commencement of regulated discharges . The rule leaves it to the permit authority to factor in variability, and set a period of time for collection to be demonstrated that accounts for variability. While EPA acknowledges that the collection technologies have variability in their efficiency, EPA has allowed for a simple means of compliance, in which certifying that you are using the specific technology according to specifications is all that is required to be deemed in compliance with the collection requirement. If a permittee chooses certif ication, this is certifying that it is using the technology properly, which indicates that it is doing so continuously during the permit term. Therefore it is achieving collection levels that reflect long - term use of the technology, rather than collection levels that reflect short - term variability. That is part of why EPA concluded that certification will ensure that that the airport is achieving 60%, since 60% reflects long - term use of CDPs. In conclusion, the rule does not need to specify a time period for demonstrating compliance with the collection requirement. COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 17 Require Permit Writers to Accept Compliance Demonstrations Consistent with Those on Which BAT Collection Standards Are Based Similarly, it is imperative that permit writers implementing any final ELG allow permittees to demonstrate collection efficiency in the same manner as have the airports upon whose data EPA relies to establish its collection standard. At a minimum this must include allowing deicing collection facilities that do not meet EPA’s constrained definition, but which EPA relied upon to derive the BAT ADF Collection standard for Tier One airports, to qualify for purposes of Proposed § 449.20(b)(ii ). The technical specifications of Proposed § 449.20(b)(ii) must be modified in at least two important respects. First, the use of the term “centralized deicing pad” is itself confusing and potentially overly constraining. In Advisory Circular (“AC”) 150/5 300 - 14B, Design of Aircraft Deicing Facilities, FAA defines “centralized deicing facility” as “an aircraft deicing facility located at the terminal gates/aprons or along taxiways serving departure runways;” and “remote deicing facility” as “an aircraft dei cing facility located along taxiways serving departure runways or near the departure end of runways.” 59 In addition, the Notice suggests that a CDP can only be “a facility . . . built specifically for aircraft deicing operations.”60 Whatever term EPA adop ts to refer to the required facility, it must be made clear that any facility that meets the proposed collection standard at least encompasses the facilities included in FAA’s definitions of “remote deicing facilities” and “centralized deicing facilities.” In addition, EPA must clarify that such facilities may be used for other purposes when not used for deicing operations. This is essential given that efficient use of all available pavement to accommodate operations is at a premium for all airports, but es pecially land - constrained airports and the deicing season at the vast majority of airports (and all potential Tier One airports outside of Alaska) is half a year or less, and deicing events are the exception rather than the rule even during deicing season. In addition, airports may have taken advantage of existing infrastructure (e.g., drainage systems, pavement areas used for other purposes) to capture ADF

– EPA must clarify that such facilities may qualify under Proposed § 449.20(b)(ii). Second, the desig n specifications touching on safety must be dropped. We discuss the “deicing for safe taxiing” limit in detail below. The “peak hour,” “minimum width” and “minimum length” requirements in subparagraphs (D) to (F) are not within EPA’s authority to dictate a nd, in any event, add nothing given that all such facilities must meet the exacting specifications set out in AC 150/5300 - 14B. So too, computations utilizing different parameters or different methodologies could easily produce performance metrics that are more or less stringent than those supported by the Record. A final ELG cannot allow its substantive collection standards to vary based on the use of compliance calculations inconsistent with the performance demonstrations contained in the Record. A remedy would be to modify Proposed §§ 449.20(b)(2) and (3) to require permit writers to accept compliance demonstrations consistent with those in the Record upon which EPA relied when setting the collection standards in the first instance. This281 might be accomplis hed by providing illustrative calculation or by enumerating acceptable demonstration practices consistent with those in the Record upon which the proposed collection standard is based. If permit writer and permittee agree to an alternate form of compliance determination, of course, the permit writer should be authorized to employ that methodology as well. Response: EPA is not promulgating uniform ADF collection or treatment requirements for existing airports. Therefore this comment is not applicable to existing airports. However, CDPs do represent the technology basis of the NSPS collection requirements in the final rule. The final rule defines a CDP as “a facility on an airfield designed for aircraft deicing operations, constructed with a drainage sy stem separate (or that can be made separate) from the airport main storm drain system. The separate drainage system is connected to a wastewater storage facility.” This definition should address any potential confusion created by the terminology, and does not conflict with FAA advisory circulars. EPA disagrees that it needs to clarify that such facilities may be used for other purposes when not used for deicing operations. The final rule does not establish or restrict how CDP areas may be used outside of deicing. Rather, it just defines what constitutes a CDP for compliance purposes for those airports that would elect to meet the requirements through certification of installation and operation of a CDP as defined by the rule. Nothing in the rule prevents an airport from using existing infrastructure like drainage systems as part of a CDP. The final rule does not limit the amount of ADF that may be applied for safe taxiing. See Section V.B.2.b of the preamble. EPA has revised the specifications for demonstrating compliance with the NSPS collection requirement in the final rule. EPA has removed the “peak hour,” “minimum width” and “minimum length” requirements. EPA agrees with the commenter on the need for flexib ility for NSPS compliance demonstrations. As such, the final rule includes additional flexibility. See Preamble Section XI.C for more information. See Comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1189.1 excerpt no. 5 and EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208 excerpt no. 18. COMP_D EMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 9 Include in the sections on GRV operational practices requirements for (1) a description of operational coverage of the facility in terms of area, (2) a percentage of time duri ng deicing operational days that the GRV must be operational and actively collecting ADF, and (3) an explicit requirement that all collected ADF shall be disposed of in an on - site or off - site treatment facility and no collected ADF may be discharged to the ground. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform ADF collection or discharge requirements for existing airports, or any uniform requirements based on GRV technology. As such, this comment in not applicable to the final rule.282 COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 22 §449.20(b)(1) Please provide in the final Technical Development Document a description of recommended practices for addressing ways to demonstrate compliance with this subsection that a permitting authority may include in any permit. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform ADF collection or discharge requirements for existing airports. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. With respect to NSPS, EPA has expanded upon the demonstration of compliance with the collection requirement in the final rule and in Preamble Section XI.C. However, in the circumstances where the airport would like to select an alternative method (as all owed in the final regulations with the permit authority's approval), the final determination of how compliance will be demonstrated will be the responsibility of the permit authority, as site specific conditions (i.e. accessibility of outfalls, weather pat terns, and areas where deicing occurs) make it very difficult to publish nationwide standards for what is an acceptable compliance determinations. COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 81 The Port Authority would welcome the flexibility to implement an alternative set of specifications for operation and maintenance of deicing pads. After all, such an iterative approach is the foundation for its current BMP - based approach. However, it is dif ficult to conceive of an alternative operating scenario that would meet the 60 percent collection requirement in the way EPA has proposed it. If 60 percent of all available normalized ADF must be collected, and if a deicing pad that is used for all deicing activity meets that requirement, no alternatives exist. EPA purports to allow flexibility but with no evidence that an alternative approach exists (and none provided by EPA), promoting flexibility is a bit misplaced. Response: The final rule does not e stablish uniform ADF collection or discharge requirements for existing airports. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. Therefore, this comment which is specific to the operation of existing Port Authority airport s is not relevant to the final rule. With respect to the NSPS collection requirement, the final preamble includes additional information on how to meet the collection requirement, including examples of how pollution prevention credits may be applied to the collection requirement. In addition, the final rule includes multiple alternatives for demonstrating compliance. COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 83 The requirement that an airport must demonstrate “t o the Director’s satisfaction” that the alternative technology would achieve a 60 percent collection requirement is completely unworkable. To do so, the Port Authority would have to: • Collect complete and accurate information from all airlines/deicing app liers on actual aircraft deicing fluid use; • Collect enough information on the aircraft deicing fluids used to be able to convert product used into “normalized” aircraft deicing fluid estimates; • Show that 80283 percent of the Type I aircraft deicing fluid and 10 percent of the Type IV aircraft deicing fluid applied to each aircraft actually does fall to the ground so that it is potentially available for collection;173 and • Accurately measure the aircraft deicing fluid collected by the alternate technology, for all types of deicing conditions, separate from storm water or other contaminants. Echoing our previous comments, a key component of this approach

– collection of reliable and complete information from the airlines

– would be extremely difficult (and w e could not guarantee the validity of the information). In addition, the validity of the EPA’s conclusions regarding “available” aircraft deicing fluid (i.e., that 80 percent of sprayed Type I and 10 percent of sprayed Type IV aircraft deicing fluid would be available for collection) is critical to our ability to demonstrate the success of an alternate technology. The demonstration that an alternative technology would work would be tied to the whole suite of flawed assumptions and analysis that EPA uses to support the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule does not identify any methods to quantify or demonstrate the amount of fluid collected. Permitting authorities and airports would be left to devise their own methods. Without adequate guidance or information, pe rmit writers could end up devising inconsistent approaches with widely varying results. If the approach agreed to by the permitting authority and the airport proved over time that it was not meeting EPA’s standard (for whatever reason that may be completel y out of the Port Authority’s control), the Port Authority would be liable for its “non compliance” to third parties under the CWA citizens suit provisions. Such an “after - the - fact” liability and risk is unacceptable. [FOOTNOTE: 173 EPA’s 60 percent collec tion threshold is applied to “available ADF,” which means 80 percent of the sprayed Type I aircraft deicing fluid and 10 percent of the sprayed Type IV fluid. If for example, only 50 percent of the sprayed Type I ADF falls directly to the ground, only 50 p ercent is available for collection, and we could never demonstrate collection of 60 percent of 80 percent of the sprayed fluid.] Response: The final regulation does not set uniform ADF collection or treatment requirements for existing airports. Howev er, the final rule does set ADF collection and treatment requirements for new sources. A permittee can challenge a permit writer’s decision as arbitrary and capricious if they believe it is unreasonable or inconsistent with other permit writers’ decisio ns. For new sources, EPA has expanded upon the demonstration of compliance with the collection requirement in the final rule and in Preamble Section XI.C. As described there, the final rule provides certain ways to demonstrate compliance with the NSPS coll ection requirement that do not require tabulating, calculating, or reporting ADF usage and collection. However, the final rule also includes provisions that allow a new airport to elect to demonstrate compliance by tabulating, calculating, or reporting AD F usage and collection. Because such an approach is airport specific (e.g., accessibility of outfalls, weather patterns, and areas where deicing occurs), the manner in which such information would be reported is appropriately determined by the permitting a uthority. COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 85 The third proposed method for permitting authorities to ensure compliance is monitoring: “The permittee shall be required to monitor periodically, by means deemed acceptable by the Director, and at a frequency determined by the Director, the amount of ADF sprayed and the amount of available ADF collected in order to determine the compliance with the percent capture requirement.”174 There are significant technical and administrative obstacles to accurate monitoring. These obstacles are noted in our previous comments regarding the reliance on airline data, the reliance on the EPA’s determination of available ADF as being accurate at our airports, and the granting of discretion to permit writers without adequate accompanying guidance.284 Response: See response t o EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1

– 83 in this comment code. As explained in the referenced response, because such an approach must take into account the specifics of an individual airport (e.g., accessibility of outfalls, areas where deicing occurs, available options for estimating ADF usage, available options for measuring ADF collection), it is difficult to publish nationwide standards for what is an acceptable compliance determinations. EPA has appropriately left such determinations to the permitting autho rity. COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 69 EPA Must Clarify If All Collected ADF Must Be Treated. EPA has proposed treatment limits that “must be met for all ADF collected pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section” (referring to the proposed 60 and 20 percent collection requirements). This could be interpreted to mean that only discharges of ADF required to be collected would be subject to the proposed COD limits. Therefore, if an airport is subj ect to 20 percent collection requirements, but actually collects 30 percent of available ADF, only discharges of the required 20 percent would be subject to the COD limits. In the same subsection, however, the Proposed Rule states, “Except for ADF collecte d and transported to off - site treatment facilities, any existing point source subject to this part must achieve the numeric effluent limitations....” This language seems to imply that any discharges of ADF - impacted runoff would be subject to the proposed COD limits. Therefore, an airport subject to the 20 percent collection requirements that actually collects 30 percent would have to meet the COD limits for all associated discharges. EPA must clarify whether all collected ADF must be treated or only the ADF c ollected pursuant to the applicable requirements. Response: The final rule requires new sources to collect “at least” 60 percent of available ADF, and states that “the discharger must achieve the numeric effluent limitations in Table I for available ADF collected”. EPA’s intention is for the permit to require all collected ADF to be treated to the effluent limitation for COD. COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 72 EPA has not identified where the proposed COD limits would apply. Logically, EPA may have considered the “end - of - pipe” COD limit to apply at the discharge from the treatment system (AFB for example) employed by the airport. However, technically, “end - of - pipe” would be considered at the point at w hich the discharge leaves the permittees property or enters a water of the U.S. (if on site). Several issues may complicate this issue. First, if EPA allows compliance at the discharge from the “treatment system,” then what about airports that use ponds or treatment devices that are less obvious than an AFB system. Where would they measure compliance? Next, if EPA would measure compliance at the point source discharge, what about the situation in which a discharge from an AFB system that is within the COD s tandard then picks up non - ADF - based COD between the AFB discharge and the airports point source discharge such that it no longer meets the proposed standard? The airport will have met the limit for collected ADF, but not measured at the “end - of - pipe” disch arge. EPA must clarify and address these issues.285 Response: In the final rule, EPA did not use the term end of pipe. Rather, the rule specifies that the NSPS COD limitation must be met at the location where the effluent leaves the on - site treatment syste m utilized for meeting these requirements and before commingling with any other discharge. If an airport elects to use a pond which would discharge, sampling from within the outlet structure would be an available option but the specific sampling location would depend on the design of the pond itself. Likewise, for other treatment devices that are "less obvious" the specific design would come into play, but any point prior to co - mingling with sources of dilution or stormwater would be acceptable. A discharge from an AFB system that is within the COD standard then picks up non - ADF - based COD between the AFB discharge and the airports point source discharge would need to be monitored prior to the mixing of the two waste streams. COMP_DEMO - Demonstrati on of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1 - 5 The Proposed Rule defines annual normalized ADF usage as “the average amount of normalized aircraft deicing fluid used annually, calculated over the five year period prior to submittal of a pe rmit application or Notice of Intent.” However, on page 44701 of the Proposed Rule, EPA states that to demonstrate compliance “The permittee would report, at a frequency determined by the permit authority, the amount of ADF sprayed and the amount of availa ble ADF collected, in order to determine the percentage of available ADF collected.” From the second statement, it seems likely that a permit authority might require CAK to demonstrate compliance with the collection standard more frequently than once per s eason. Demonstration of compliance with the collection standard more frequently than once per season may not be feasible for CAK. Typically towards the beginning and ending of the deicing season, smaller volumes of ADF are applied compared to the middle of the deicing season. When small volumes of ADF are applied, such as volumes associated with frost deicing, a significantly smaller percentage of that ADF can be feasibly collected. Less of the ADF is available for collection because smaller volumes of ADF can spread out on the deicing pads forming a thin film on the pavement that may not immediately run off into the collection system for a pad. For light deicing events at CAK, it is likely that little ADF will be collected. If only a few light deicing event s occur during a reporting period, such as at the beginning of the season, it may not be feasible for us to collect enough of that ADF to comply with the collection standard for that reporting period. Therefore, even though CAK has deicing pads (the EPA - id entified BAT for a collection percentage of 60%), we may not be able to comply with the collection standard under certain circumstances. It is expected that any airport with a deicing pad would have similar issues collecting the required percentage of ADF during frost deicing conditions. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform ADF collection or discharge requirements for existing airports. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis As such, because this com ment is specific to CAK (an existing airport), it is not relevant to the final rule. For a discussion of low level ADF usage as it applies to the NSPS collection requirement, see response to COMP_DEMO EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1189.1

– 3 For a discussion of demonstrating compliance with the NSPS collection requirement, see COMP_DEMO EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1

– 83.286 COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1246 - 5 [T]he facilities should submit a semi - annual report of progr ess on complying with the ELG requirements. Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's suggestion. However, ultimately the frequency for reporting is at the discretion of the permitting authority. COMP_DEMO - Demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1248 - 3 Next, as drafted, the proposed rule does not place any constraints upon the Director's ability under §449.20(b) to select among the methods by which a permittee can demonstrate compliance with the percent capture requirement i n §449.10. We request that such reasonable constraints be added, i.e., that the Director may not unreasonably reject the permittee's request for a particular compliance method, provided that adequate documentation is provided by the permittee in support of the requested compliance method. In this connection, the CDA requests clarification that a mass balance analysis is an appropriate method of demonstrating compliance under §449.20(b) with the percent capture requirements set forth in §449.10. Response: EPA has not published a specific monitoring methodology (should an airport elect to monitor for compliance as opposed to simply certifying use of a specific technology) for an airport to demonstrate its compliance with the NSPS collection rate. This proce dure would be developed by the permittee, prior to the permitting authority proposing the permit, so that the method could be made subject to public comments prior to incorporation into the permit. Mass balance is an appropriate method of demonstrating co mpliance with the percent capture requirements. EPA has not published procedures or methods for a mass balance analysis, therefore the procedures would be set by the permit authority. COMP_TIME_EXT - Compliance timeframe extension Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1189.1 - 6 (Airport Assn. of ND) The 30 day compliance date should be extended. Airports should be allowed sufficient time to program funds for the capital expense of GRV's, as well as to follow required procurement policies to obtain the v ehicles and support apparatus and to hire employees. A three year period or more should be allowed to program funds (FAA grant, passenger facility charges or state grants). A shorter period is likely to cause disruption of existing capital plans that have already allocated funding. Existing projects often have restrictive timelines that must be followed (i.e. environmental or contractual issues). Provisions should be made for extended timelines beyond 3 years for construction of Deice pads to allow for site studies, environmental assessments, engineer selection, design and to resolve conflicts related to space not immediately available. Also, the reconfiguration of ramps and taxiways to make space for a deice pad may be necessary to place a deice pad and its associated physical plant. The larger and more space constrained the airport, the greater the need for a special provision to accommodate additional time.287 Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establi sh uniform collection or treatment requirements at existing airports) This comment is specific to the proposed ADF collection requirements. As the final rule does not establish uniform requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing airports, the re is no need to extend the compliance date. With respect to new airports, airports are planned well in advance of construction, and the record shows that there are no new airports that would be within the scope of the NSPS final rule for which planning h as begun. Any such new airports for which planning is begun in the future will have ample time to incorporate the NSPS requirements for aircraft deicing discharges during planning. COMP_TIME_EXT - Compliance timeframe extension Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1200.1 - 5 (Kaufman) Compliance with the regulation will likely require significant capital expenditures to either purchase or upgrade equipment, based on the EPA’s assumed collection technologies of glycol recovery vehicle, plug and pump system, and centralized deicing pad. Thirty days, therefore, appears to be an unreasonable timeframe and the EPA should consider extending the time for compliance to at least one year, to allow airports and airlines to find adequate infrastructure fi nancing. Certainly the time for compliance should be no more than three years, as suggested by the EPA.11 If the compliance period is extended, the EPA should consider benchmark requirements on the way to full compliance. For example, if the compliance per iod is extended to three years, the EPA could have a phased implementation as follows: End of year 1: 5% ADF captured (if under 460,000 gallons ADF) or 20% ADF captured (if equal to or over 460,000 gallons ADF) End of year 2: 12% ADF captured (if under 460 ,000 gallons ADF) or 40% ADF captured (if equal to or over 460,000 gallons ADF) End of year 3: Full compliance, with 20% ADF captured (if under 460,000 gallons ADF) or 60% ADF captured (if equal to or over 460,000 gallons ADF) Such a phased implementation would ease the burden of compliance while also providing for targets for reduction of uncollected and untreated ADF. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform collection or treatment req uirements at existing airports) This comment is specific to the proposed ADF collection requirements. As the final rule did not establish requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing airports, there is no need to extend the compliance date. W ith respect to new airports, airports are planned well in advance of construction. As such, new airports have ample time to incorporate the NSPS requirements for aircraft deicing discharges during planning. COMP_TIME_EXT - Compliance timeframe extension Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1203.1 - 4 (FL Airports Council) FAC recommends that the proposed rule’s 30 - day time period for compliance be extended. This extension should be put in place due to the use of estimated information for usage of deicing materials at airports and the ability for airports to respond to the purchase, contract, or installation of deicing recovery systems. FAC recommends a two (2) year time period for compliance with the proposed rule. During this time frame, the EPA could co llect actual usage data and create the reporting mechanism guidelines stated above. For airports that annually conduct deicing activities on a large scale, this time frame could be288 utilized to program funding and potentially capital improvement projects to address deicing fluid recovery. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ). This comment is specific to the proposed A DF collection requirements. As the final rule did not establish requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing airports, there is no need to extend the compliance date. With respect to new airports, airports are planned well in advance of constr uction. As such, new airports have ample time to incorporate the NSPS requirements for aircraft deicing discharges during planning. COMP_TIME_EXT - Compliance timeframe extension Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 21 (ANC Airport) The time fr ame to install pads should be flexible enough so that the pad installation can be coordinated with other airfield projects. This will allow for lower costs if coupled with certain projects. In addition, by not ensuring a pad construction project is integra ted with other projects, it will results in delays in other needed projects and/or cause serious delay or other problems with aircraft operations during construction. EPA needs to realize that construction in northern airports do not occur year round. Our airfield projects are done from Mid - May through the end of September. Construction standards are too hard and expensive to maintain in winter months and during breakup. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports ). This comment is specific to the proposed ADF collection requirements. As the final rule did not establish requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existi ng airports, there is no need to extend the compliance date. With respect to new airports, airports are planned well in advance of construction. As such, new airports have ample time to incorporate the NSPS requirements for aircraft deicing discharges du ring planning. COMP_TIME_EXT - Compliance timeframe extension Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 7 (ATA) Some of the Model Technologies Cannot Be Designed, Financed and Constructed Within the 3 - Year Implementation Period Required Under the ELG Program The CWA requires compliance with effluent limitations established on the basis of an ELG within 3 years of the date on which those limitations are first incorporated into a facility’s NPDES permit.30 [FOOTNOTE:30 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(3)(B).] In lig ht of this, technologies with a longer lead time than 3 years are not acceptable candidates as model technologies in an ELG. Otherwise, ELGs could designate as models technologies that are incapable of application within a discharger’s statutory compliance period, effectively placing all affected dischargers in noncompliance. Such long - lead time technologies, therefore, are unavailable within the terms of the ELG Program and are disqualified from consideration as “model” technologies in any ELG rulemaking. While model technologies such as the use of glycol recovery vehicles (“GRVs”) and the substitution of other pavement deicing materials for urea might be capable of being implemented within this time span, the design, funding and construction of CDPs and th eir appurtenances at Tier One airports and the implementation of anaerobic fluidized bed reactors (“AFBR”) treatment systems at both Tier One and289 Tier Two airports in many

– if not all

– cases cannot be implemented within a 3 - year compliance period. Thus, EPA must eliminate these and any comparable long - lead time technologies from consideration in this rulemaking and identify alternative, available model technologies that are not disqualified by the statutory terms under which the ELG Program operates. Re sponse: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ). This comment is specific to the proposed ADF collection requirements. As the f inal rule did not establish requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing airports, there is no need to extend the compliance date. With respect to new airports, airports are planned well in advance of construction. As such, new airports have ample time to obtain financing and incorporate the NSPS requirements for aircraft deicing discharges during planning. COMP_TIME_EXT - Compliance timeframe extension Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 10 (AK DEC) In the recent Construction and Development ELG issued by EPA there is a phased implementation (see §450.22(a)). Consider the following: require compliance with §490.10(a) to begin three years from date of promulgation and require compliance with §490.10(b) to begin one year from the dat e of promulgation. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ). This comment is specific to the proposed ADF collection requirements. As the final rule did not establish requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing airports, there is no need to extend the compliance date. With respect to new airports, airports are planned well in advance of construction. As su ch, new airports have ample time to obtain financing and incorporate the NSPS requirements for aircraft deicing discharges during planning. COMP_TIME_EXT - Compliance timeframe extension Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 52 (AAAE) AAAE believ es that the EPA must give far more than a mere 30 - days for airports to comply with these significant compliance requirements. As acknowledged in both the preamble to the Rule and the EPA's economic analysis, the implementation of these new standards will h ave a significant impact on the operating budget of the airports. In particular, small and medium sized airports need sufficient time to secure adequate funding in order to meet these new obligations. The EPA's economic analysis makes clear that implementa tion of the Rule will place a heavy burden on the budgets of the airports and will have an disproportionate impact on smaller operations. Moreover, as acknowledged in the Rule, airports are not traditional regulated entities in that they do not operate for profit: almost all potentially affected airports are publicly owned and operated by local, county, or state governments, or by quasi governmental authorities created to operate the airport. As governmental or quasigovernmental entities,290 airports do not ea rn a profit or loss in the traditional financial sense; in fact, many airports have been operated with the expectation that they will break even financially. . . . 74 Fed. Reg. at 44702 - 03 (the impact "is not equivalent to the impact on income of a for - pro fit private - sector business"). In particular, smaller airports will struggle to find adequate funds for these new requirements. Moreover, airports are constrained by the policies and procedures that they must meet in order to request increases in funding ? they cannot simply take out a loan or charge more for services in order to generate the revenue required to meet the expected financial burden. In addition, the EPA has, as it must, acknowledged that the rule will be promulgated during a time period of ec onomic volatility where airports face unique funding constraints. 74 Fed. Reg. at 44702. Thus, AAAE has legitimate concerns that the additional compliance costs associated with the rule will have a greater than normal impact on the airport authorities. Pha sing in of the rule is necessary to offset such impacts. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform ADF collection or treatment requirements for existing airports). As the final rule do es not establish such requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing airports, there is no need to extend the compliance date. With respect to new airports, airports are planned well in advance of construction. As such, new airports have ample time to obtain financing and incorporate the NSPS requirements for aircraft deicing discharges during planning. The Agency acknowledges that smaller airports have fewer financial resources and less access to capital markets than do larger airports. Howev er, EPA nevertheless determined that the final BAT rule, which sets uniform requirements for airfield deicing only and not for aircraft deicing, is economically achievable across the industry. Specifically, the Agency found that 135 small and non - hubs ar e in the scope of the rule; of these small airports, 110 are not projected to incur costs for urea substitution. That is, over 80 percent of these smaller airports already do not use urea for airfield deicing and have found it economically achievable. Of the 26 small and non - hub airports expected to incur urea substitution costs, 11 will only have to purchase a different pavement deicing product; the 15 small and non - hub airports expected to incur capital costs will average less than $30,000 in average an nualized capital costs per year ($2006; 7 percent real rate). These projected incremental capital costs have a negligible impact on the DSCR of the small and non - hub airports expected to incur capital costs. Only 1 small hub is projected to incur costs e xceeding 3 percent of operating revenues, and 6 small and non - hubs are projected to incur costs exceeding 1 percent but less than 3 percent of operating revenues. Average annual total compliance costs are less than $0.25 per enplaned passenger for all exc ept 5 small and non - hubs, and less than $0.50 per enplaned passenger for all except 1 small hub. EPA therefore concluded that the rule is economically achievable for small and non - hub airports as well as large and medium hubs. The final BAT rule is only put into effect when it is incorporated into permits. At any given airport, this process could occur many months after the effective date of the rule. Therefore many airports won’t have to comply with the urea requirements exactly on the effective date or close to it. Further, EPA proposed this rule in 2009. As such, airports have had ample time to explore the use of alternative deicers.291 COMP_TIME_EXT - Compliance timeframe extension Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1

– 53 The EPA does not account for the realities of the time necessary to retrofit existing stormwater management facilities, which obviously are all unique. Moreover, airports will need time to develop strategies for disposal of the ADF waste. Simply put, the n otion that airports could find the funding, determine how to retrofit, undertake construction and contract for disposal within 30 days is nonsensical. Airports will be forced to modify existing stormwater management systems to meet the treatment requiremen ts of 449.10(b). The EPA identified Anaerobic Fluidized Bed ("AFB") as the best available treatment technology, 74 Fed. Reg. at 44692, and as the most likely means of compliance, id at 44695. Indeed, the EPA estimates that 95% of the airports covered by th e rule will utilize on - site ADF treatment. Id. Yet, the EPA fails to recognize that getting AFB treatment technology in place will take time, and in many cases is not appropriate fit for an individual airport. The preamble acknowledges that many airports a re not presently equipped to treat their ADF wastewater to the specified numeric limitations required under the proposed rule. Indeed, only two airports surveyed currently use AFB technology. 74 Fed. Reg. at 44687. In addition, obviously, there will be cos ts and AAAE believes that they have been underestimated. The EPA's stated belief "that the use of AFB technology for treating spent ADF would be economically achievable in the industry," 74 Fed. Reg. at 44693, is not supported for smaller airports. Indeed, the analysis of Technology Costs set forth in Section 11 of the TDD is based on only two airports, which had widely varying capital costs. See Technical Report at 11 - 22 - 11 - 23. The EPA has no reliable estimate of the capital costs for construction, opera tion and maintenance of AFB technology and therefore should not assume that determining cost and finding funding will be so easy a task. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform require ments for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ). This comment is specific to the proposed ADF collection requirements. As the final rule did not establish requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing airports, there is no need to extend the compliance date. With respect to new airports, airports are planned well in advance of construction. As such, new airports have ample time to obtain financing and incorporate the NSPS requirements for aircraft deicing discharges during plannin g. Regarding the commenter’s discussion of economics issues at small airports, see response to EPA - HQ OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 52 (AAAE) (code COMP TIME EXT). COMP_TIME_EXT - Compliance timeframe extension Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1

– 54 Offering sufficient time to adjust to the new requirements would also be applicable for using up existing pavement deicers and finding alternatives under Section 449.10(c). Airports chose pavement deicers based on numerous factors that are specific to the climate and operations of the airport. Sufficient time must be given to evaluate limited alternatives and to procure them from the market. Response: Several airfield pavement deicing products, which are alternatives to urea, have been available on the m arket for many years. EPA identified these alternatives in the proposed rule, nearly three years ago, and292 the final rule similarly identifies these alternatives. Airports have already had three years to investigate alternative airfield deicers. Since th e vast majority of airports use non - urea - containing airfield deicers, these products are readily available. EPA has no data in its record that demonstrates these products are not available, nor has the commenter provided such data. The alternative produc ts are currently in use by many airports and their effectiveness has been widely reported. See section 5.1 of the TDD. EPA believes it would not take significant time for airports to determine which alternative products are acceptable for use or to procu re these alternatives. With respect to using existing stock, EPA notes that the final rule does not require airports to discontinue using urea - based deicers, and includes an alternative compliance method. See section X.D of the final rule preamble. COMP _TIME_EXT - Compliance timeframe extension Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 56 In order to provide some level of regulatory certainty and to ensure that permittees have reasonable compliance choices, the EPA must include adequate time for development of needed technical guidance. Clearly both the permit writers and the regulated comm unity alike need adequate time to fully assess compliance options and the EPA's intent. Thus, a delay in implementation is necessary so that the EPA may more fully articulate what may be required and to collaborate with permittees in coming up with alterna tive technology. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ). Neither additional time nor EPA guidance is needed for ex isting airports to comply with the airfield deicer requirements of the final rule. See response to 1231.1, #54 (above) and 1231.1 - 52 above (The final BAT rule is only put into effect when it is incorporated into permits. At any given airport, this proc ess could occur many months after the effective date of the rule. Therefore many airports won’t have to comply with the urea requirements exactly on the effective date or close to it.) COMP_TIME_EXT - Compliance timeframe extension Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 57 While new construction general permits issued under that authority may incorporate the ELG, the numeric limits will not be applicable to discharges for a minimum of 18 months from the effective date. This is due to the following recognition by the EPA of the impact the adoption of an ELG has on the regulated community and permit writers. "Without an 18 month lead time in the applicability of the numeric limitation and monitoring requirements permitting authorities and the permitte es in those states would have, what EPA believes, an unreasonably short time period to digest these new requirements and plan accordingly." Id. The deicing ELG should be given the same delay in effective date for the same reasons. As discussed above, given the need for technical guidance and alterations to existing systems, it is evident that the EPA and the airports alike need additional time to analyze compliance options. Hence, AAAE believes that the EPA ought to phase in the applicability of the technol ogy based requirements of the deicing rule over 3 years to allow permit writers adequate time to develop technical specifications to demonstrate compliance and to allow the regulated community time to prepare for compliance with the new limitations. Altern atively, given that the MSGP expires September 29, 2013, the EPA's focus may be better served by working on incorporating these new changes into the next iteration of the MSGP.293 Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final r ule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ). EPA intends to incorporate the Final Rule provisions in the 2013 MSGP. This comment is specific to the proposed ADF collection requirements. As the final rule did not establish requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing airports, there is no need to extend the compliance date. With respect to new airports, airports are planned well in advance of construction. As such, new airports have amp le time to incorporate the NSPS requirements for aircraft deicing discharges during planning. COMP_TIME_EXT - Compliance timeframe extension Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 112 (Port Authority NY/NJ) Clean Water Act Section 301(b)(3)(B) man dates that ELG standards, once incorporated into a facility’s NPDES permit, must be complied with, “as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than three years after the date such limitations are established....”280. Permitting authorities must inc orporate ELG standards, once promulgated by EPA,281 into NPDES permits as effluent limitations.282 Hence, once EPA’s ELG standards are “effective,” the permitting authorities must include the standards in all subsequent rounds of NPDES permits. If a facili ty seeks a new or reissued permit immediately following EPA’s promulgation of ELG standards, the permitting authority must implement those standards immediately. In theory, the longest a target facility could go without the ELG standards being implemented into their permit would be five years (which assumes that that facility obtained a new five year NPDES permit immediately prior to EPA promulgating new ELG standards). However, such a scenario is unlikely because most NPDES permits contain reopener clauses that allow permitting authorities to modify existing permits when new ELG standards have been promulgated.283 The CWA three - year compliance deadline once the ELG standards are implemented into a NPDES permit is absolute. EPA’s NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual states the following: When applying applicable ELGs in permits, permit writers need to be aware that they do not have the authority to extend statutory deadlines in a NPDES permit; thus, all applicable technology - based requirements (i.e., ELGs and BPJ) mu st be applied in NPDES permits without the benefit of a compliance schedule.284 The Proposed Rule would force certain airports, including the Port Authority’s major airports, to construct centralized deicing pads. Even if our airports could be provided the longest theoretical statutory compliance period

– eight years, or five years to obtain a reissued NPDES permit followed by the three - year statutory period

– we could not design, finance, and construct pads at our airports within that timeframe. This compl iance schedule does not account for the studies, design, permitting, construction, and staffing of what would be a major change to the infrastructure and operation at our airports. The proposed schedule also does not reflect the factor that limited land av ailability plays in the timeline. In addition, and of great import, the compliance schedule would separate the construction of the required infrastructure from the context of other necessary airport development, increasing the costs and inefficiency of com pliance. [FOOTNOTE: 281 Typically, EPA establishes an “effective” date for its final regulation that is 60 days after the regulation is published in the Federal Register. See e.g., Construction and Development ELGs, 74 Fed. Reg. 62,995 (Dec. 1, 2009)(effec tive date of regulations February 1, 2010).] Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ). This comment is specific to the proposed ADF collection requirements. As the final rule did not establish uniform requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing airports, there is no need to extend the294 compliance date. With respect to new airport s, airports are planned well in advance of construction. As such, new airports have ample time to incorporate the NSPS requirements for aircraft deicing discharges during planning. COMP_TIME_EXT - Compliance timeframe extension Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2 004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 113 Compliance would take Longer than Proposed As noted in our earlier comments, our airports do not have adequate land area to support deicing pads, storage, and on - site treatment that would comply with the Proposed Rule. Even if these f acilities were feasible for Port Authority airport facilities, the process of planning, environmental review, design, and construction would take much longer than anticipated in the Proposed Rule. Planning Studies. The siting and design of a deicing pad an d on - site treatment system (if feasible) would require studies on a series of topics. One study would involve an evaluation of potential deicing pad locations, considering pad size; optimal location(s) relative to runway use patterns, aircraft parking loca tions, and holdover times; constraints related to FAA airport design standards; and other issues. A related study would consider the potential relationship of deicing pads to airfield and aircraft operations, including taxiway routes and use, queuing, and potential impacts on aircraft delay. A third study would consider the relationship of deicing pads to the storm water collection system, potential storage requirements, and possible locations for above - or below - ground storage tanks. A fourth study would c onsider the requirements for on - site treatment, including the footprint needed for a treatment facility and possible sites. Whether undertaken separately or together, these studies constitute a major effort that would in itself take at least a year to comp lete. However, even a cursory evaluation of the above topics through the review of this Proposed Rule indicates that operationally efficient and cost effective collection pads, storage, and treatment are not feasible at Port Authority airport facilities. E nvironmental Review. Construction of deicing pads to comply with storm water quality regulations would typically require minimal environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). However, any facility construction that would involv e the filling of wetlands or disturbance of other environmentally sensitive areas would require a more extensive environmental review. Completing a more extensive NEPA process with the associated studies and permits could take a year or longer. Costs of we tland mitigation, which would be required through the permitting process, have not been treated adequately in the Proposed Rule. Recent Port Authority experience shows that the current and real cost of wetland mitigation through the restoration, enhancemen t and preservation of 7 acres is $4.2 million, or $600,000 per acre of mitigation. In addition, consideration must be given to acquisition for other potential permits for the associated treatment storage and conveyance systems. The assessment of air - permit ting implications could not be fully evaluated due to lack of information in the docket and due to the limitations of the comment period. Further, a full assessment and modeling of the POTWs associated with each of the major facilities must be performed to evaluate the biological treatment, conveyance and storage capacity for acceptance of deicing seasonal flow collected from rule - compliant facilities and operations. A partial assessment of the use of POTWs for Port Authority airport facilities indicates th at this is not a disposal option for storm water containing deicing fluid. The Port Authority has discussed this issue in consultations with the NYCDEP, owners of local POTWs. Design and Construction. Port Authority staff developed a rough estimate of a ti meline for design and construction for the deicing pad system analyzed in the cost section of these comments. The timeline is enclosed as Appendix E. As we noted in the cost discussion, these hypothetical deicing pads could not be feasibly built, for the o perational, regulatory, cost, and other reasons we have noted previously. We are providing this information only to indicate the potential timeline for compliance with the Proposed Rule. Based on the estimated timeline, it would take approximately six year s to complete the design and construction process for the deicing pad systems at our three major airports (assuming that the work is completed simultaneously). The design and construction process would be lengthy in part because compliance with the Propose d Rule would require that multiple, large deicing pads be constructed. Each pad would require installation of a large, event - based underground storage tank, modifications to drainage, and installation295 of valves, pumps, and extensive piping. The design of these facilities involves numerous contract drawings with extensive detail, and requires the participation of multiple technical disciplines. The Port Authority Engineering Department’s estimated design schedule is based on a comparison of a deicing system project to our current Runway 13R - 31L (“Bay Runway”) reconstruction project at JFK. The actual number of contract drawings, level of detail, and involvement of multiple disciplines for the Bay Runway project were reviewed and the timeline was used as a gui de to evaluate the corresponding level of effort for design and construction of multiple deicing pads and associated infrastructures. It is difficult to schedule the construction of facilities at major airports in particular because they are active facilit ies, open 24 hours a day, every day of the year. The airfield cannot be closed, nor parts of the airfield cordoned off, for extended periods to construct new deicing facilities without significantly hampering normal airport operations. Construction during daytime hours in particular is limited because aircraft activity levels are higher and the entire facility is in use. Our estimated construction schedule accounts for the complicated logistics of working with and around ongoing airport activity. Other Comp onents. Our estimated schedule does not include the time that would be required to design, construct, and test an AFBR system. Nor does it include the installation of the massive long - term storage facilities that would be needed to comply with the Propose d Rule. If environmental remediation of a particular site were required, the site cleanup and coordination with the states would extend the schedule further. The schedule also assumes that the projects have been authorized and that adequate funding is in p lace. Total Timeline. When all considerations are taken into account, it could take nearly a decade to plan, site, design, and build on airport facilities to comply with the Proposed Rule. This estimate is based on the actual experience of Port Authority s taff with major airport infrastructure projects, and this schedule precludes circumstances that could significantly delay construction beyond this timeline, including, for example, NEPA approval delays, other permitting delays, financial issues, lawsuits p ossibly related to filling in open water (see below), etc. We could find little information in the docket about the schedules for construction of deicing pad systems at other airports.285 Limited information is provided about the permitting, design and con struction schedules for two runway projects, one at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (“PHX”) and the other at Boston Logan International Airport (“BOS”).286 For both projects, the construction phase alone lasted more than two years. Although a deic ing pad system is not the same as a new runway, it is a complicated project, for the reasons noted above. The Port Authority sought, but did not find in the docket, information on how long after construction was completed it would take to get the AFBR syst ems to steady - state operation, and the adjustments that would be needed for operations and maintenance when the facility is off line outside of the deicing season. ALB worked for many years to better understand and perfect its AFBR system to get it operati ng under their unique circumstances to a level relied upon by EPA in the Proposed Rule, and even then EPA rejected some of the ALB data. [FOOTNOTE: 285 The docket includes a deicing timeline for BWI (DCN AD00054), but it is illegible. It is possible that i nformation on design and construction schedules is buried within the engineering site visit reports (though our review of several of those reports did not reveal any schedule information).] Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING ). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ). This comment is specific to the proposed ADF collection requirements. As the final rule did not establish requirements for aircraft deicin g discharges at existing airports, there is no need to extend the compliance date. With respect to new airports, airports are planned well in advance of construction. As such, new airports have ample time to incorporate the NSPS requirements for aircraf t deicing discharges during planning. Also see response to COMP_TIME EXT EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 52 . (above)296 COMP_TIME_EXT - Compliance timeframe extension Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 114 Limited Land Availability Complicates the Sc hedule As we have noted previously, adequate land is not available at our major airports for the construction of deicing pad systems. In addition, our major airports are surrounded by large water bodies, highways, and dense urban development, essentially p recluding land acquisition for airport expansion. As a result, deicing pads to comply with the Proposed Rule could be constructed only through the use of occupied land and/or the filling of open water (in Jamaica and Flushing/Bowery bays in the cases of JF K and LGA, respectively). The use of occupied land would require the demolition of structures and removal of existing infrastructure. The filling of open water would require a thorough environmental review, coordination with other federal entities, major e arthwork, and/or the construction of concrete decks. These activities would add substantial time to the project schedule (and would greatly increase overall project cost). We noted previously that construction at our major airports must be coordinated so t hat it does not conflict with airport operations. Limited land availability complicates that coordination because (1) by definition, there is less room for everything on the airport, including deicing facilities, and (2) there is a lack of land available f or staging and other construction activities. This additional coordination would add an undetermined (but important) factor to the schedule for compliance with the Proposed Rule.287 [FOOTNOTE: 287 One other factor should be considered here. After EPA propo sed this ELG, it finalized an ELG for construction storm water discharges. See 40 CFR Part 450 (74 Fed. Reg. 62,996, Dec. 1, 2009). It is likely that future construction of deicing pads would trigger numeric effluent limitations for construction storm wate r discharges. To meet those limitations, the Port Authority would have to install collection basins and treatment systems, which also would have timing, space and cost implications that EPA has not yet considered.] Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ). This comment is specific to the proposed ADF collection requirements. As the final rule did not establish requirem ents for aircraft deicing discharges at existing airports, there is no need to extend the compliance date. With respect to new airports, airports are planned well in advance of construction. Unlike existing airports, they will not have space constraints because of existing structures etc. They can design the airport to best utilize the available land and to incorporate ADF collection, storage and treatment technologies. Further, they will have ample time to incorporate the NSPS requirements for aircraft deicing discharges during planning. Also see the discussion of NSPS in the preamble. COMP_TIME_EXT - Compliance timeframe extension Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 115 Major redevelopment projects at LGA and EWR are in the initial planning stages. At LGA, the Port Authority is in the planning stages to redevelop the Central Terminal Building, which was constructed in the early 1960s. As conceptually envisioned, the project would include a new central terminal building and concourses, a centr al heating and refrigeration plant, a replacement electrical substation, new parking structures, new taxiways, reconfigurations to the ramp, a new roadway system, and relocations of utilities. The existing terminal building and several other major building s would be demolished so that the location of the replacement terminal building could be shifted. The Port Authority has authorized funding for the planning stage of this project; the project would advance to design stage as other funding becomes297 available , and agreements with airline stakeholders are obtained.288 At EWR, planning work for the redevelopment of the existing Terminal A is under way. The project would include a new or modified terminal building, new concourses, new electric infrastructure, mod ifications to the ramp area and connecting taxiways, changes to nearby access roadways, and relocation of utilities. Existing tenants either would be relocated off airport, or would be relocated within the airport. As with the LGA Central Terminal Building , the Port Authority has authorized funding for only the planning stage at this time.289 These major redevelopment projects, involving modifications to aircraft ramps and taxiways as well as buildings, offer a logical opportunity to integrate deicing fluid collection infrastructure into airport development. For example, the ramp drainage infrastructure could be designed to enable segregation and collection of storm water containing aircraft deicing fluid. Small deicing pads could become part of the ramp des ign. A combination of deicing at the gate

– draining to a dedicated drainage system, and use of small pads that could potentially fit in constrained areas without detriment to operational efficiencies, could potentially service most or all winter operation s. It is important to note that this level of planning regarding these projects has not been done as of this time. A compliance schedule that does not recognize, or allow for, the logical integration of deicing pads into airport development would force us to (1) build deicing facilities at LGA and EWR that would have to be demolished and rebuilt a few years later to accommodate planned airport redevelopment projects, and/or (2) build deicing facilities in sub - optimal locations because the most logical locat ions would not be available. The first outcome would result in much higher capital costs, as well as an inefficient use of capital funds. The second would result in higher airport operating costs, in particular the costs related to aircraft delay (as discu ssed in our earlier comments). A related concern is that the proposed schedule, as we understand it, would require complete compliance by one date, and would not allow for a phased approach. A more realistic approach would have the Port Authority working w ith local permitting agencies toward the construction of feasible and cost - effective deicing facilities/collection systems in coordination with airport development. Such an approach would likely result in the phasing of deicing facilities as each developme nt project occurs and allow for sequencing of the inherently connected siting, design, planning and construction needs of the entire airport community and the regions they service. The intricacy of the airport operations and coordination of each of the int erested tenants, airlines, operators and contractors are much more complicated than with any other “industry” that the EPA has regulated throughout the ELG process in the past. Airports clearly are not an “industry,” but a series of transportation faciliti es, each one unique in its location, configuration and operational type. EPA must recognize the inherent differences in airport operations and allow for local permitting agencies to deal with this complex issue outside the realm of an overbearing national regulation. [FOOTNOTE: 288 Port Authority 2010 Budget, http://www.panynj.gov/corporate - information/pdf/budget - 2010.pdf, accessed February 3, 2010.] Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish unif orm requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports ) and response to COMP_TIME_EXT EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1

– 114. (above) COMP_TIME_EXT - Compliance timeframe extension Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 157 (ACI) Complian ce with Proposed BAT Standards is Impossible for Many Airports within the Statutory Timeframe. Clean Water Act Section 301(b)(3)(B) mandates that ELG standards, once incorporated into a facility’s NPDES permit, must be complied with, “as expeditiously as p racticable but in no case later than three years after the date such limitations are established....”142 [Footnote 142: 33 USC § 1311(b)(3)(B).] Permitting authorities must incorporate ELG standards, once promulgated by EPA, into NPDES permits as effluent li mitations.143 Hence, once EPA promulgates ELG standards, the permitting authorities must include the standards in all subsequent rounds of NPDES permit. If a facility seeks a new298 or reissued permit immediately following EPA’s promulgation of ELG standards, the permitting authority must implement those standards immediately. In theory, the longest a target facility could go without the ELG standards being implemented into their permit would be five years (which assumes that that facility obtained a new five year NPDES permit immediately prior to EPA promulgating new ELG standards. However, such a scenario is unlikely because most NPDES permits contain reopener clauses that allow permitting authorities to modify existing permits when new ELG standards have bee n promulgated.144 The CWA three year compliance deadline once the ELG standards are implemented into a NPDES permit is absolute. EPA’s NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual states the following: When applying applicable ELGs in permits, permit writers need to be aw are that they do not have the authority to extend statutory deadlines in a NPDES permit; thus, all applicable technology - based requirements (i.e. ELGs and BPJ) must be applied in NPDES permits without the benefit of a compliance schedule.145 [Footnote 145: NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual at 5.1.1. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/writermanual.cfm?program_id=45] EPA’s proposed Airport Deicing ELG rule would force certain airports to construct centralized deicing pads. Even for airports that could be provided the long est theoretical statutory compliance period

– eight years, or five years to obtain a reissued NPDES permit followed by the three year statutory period

– most if not all could not design, finance, and construct pads within that timeframe, particularly land constrained airports. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, for example, reports that it would take the Authority 10 years or more to install centralized deicing pads at one of its airports potentially subject to the 60 percent collection standard , assuming that such a project is even possible. The “compliance impossibility” EPA has set up through its proposed Airport Deicing ELG is a clear demonstration that EPA’s proposal is legally conflicting, arbitrary and capricious. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ) and response to COMP_TIME_EXT EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1

– 114. (above) COMP_TIME_EXT - Compliance ti meframe extension Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 21 (SLC Airport) [T]o require compliance with a major new regulation 30 days after promulgation is wholly unrealistic. Improvements necessary to meet the conditions of the proposed regulation at SLC would take many years and millions of dollars to complete. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). With respe ct to the proposed ADF collection requirements, the final rule did not establish requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing airports, so this comment in not relevant. With respect to new airports, airports are planned well in advance of cons truction. As such, new airports have ample time to obtain financing and incorporate the NSPS requirements for aircraft deicing discharges during planning. With respect to requirements for airfield deicing discharges, EPA does not agree that delayed imple mentation is necessary. There is no construction associated with product substitution Most airports will simply need to purchase an alternative deicer. In some cases, they will also be required to purchase related equipment. Such expenses do not requi re long - term planning.299 COMP_TIME_EXT - Compliance timeframe extension Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1246 - 4 (VA DEQ) Given the capital improvements that many airports may face and the time needed for procurement processes, an extended compliance p rovision from EPA would be prudent. The ELG should allow permitting authorities to modify existing individual permits to establish a two or three year compliance schedule for achieving compliance with the final rule if deemed necessary. During the interim period the facility should be required to determine the appropriate percent capture rate, as well as monitor COD and Ammonia, but without limits. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports.) With respect to new airports, airports are planned well in advance of construction. As such, new airports have ample time to obtain financing and incorporate the NSPS requirements for aircraft deicing discharges during planning. Therefore, these requirements are effective 30 days after publication of the final rule. DEPART_CUTOFF - Set different departure cut - offs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1204.1 - 3 EPA needs to enforce standards at all U.S. airports that have at least 200 departures a day, whether it is a public, military, or private airfield. Doing so will help protect contamination in smaller communities that depend on the operations and economic impact from their loca l airfields or military bases. Response: The final rule requires all primary commercial airports that perform deicing and have 1,000 or more annual departures by non - propeller aircraft to discontinue the use of urea or meet a discharge limit for ammonia. EPA determined that basing the applicability at a lower departure may not be economically achievable. EPA decided to set the threshold 1,000 in order to mitigate potentially disproportionate adverse impacts to small entities (as defined by SBREFA). Bas ed on limited publically available information, EPA had concerns that, in general, small entities (airports), specifically some located in Alaska, with less than 1,000 jet departures, as well as non - primary airports, would experience disproportionally high economic impacts. Additionally, it was questionable if requiring these airports to the BAT or NSPS requirements would even be technically feasible, as there may be limited on - site staff and facilities upon which a BAT requirement could be retrofitted. R egarding military airports, see response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1204.1, excerpt number 2. (Code MILITARY). DEPART_CUTOFF - Set different departure cut - offs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 5 We agree with ADO&PF comments for rural airports to r aise the minimum threshold specified in §449.1 from 1,000 annual scheduled commercial air carrier jet departures to 2,000. Response: In the final rule, EPA has maintained that primary airports that have at least 1,000 annual non - propeller300 aircraft departures are in scope of the rule. These airports must discontinue the use of urea - based pavement deicers or meet ammonia limits for their direct discharges. EPA found this to be available and achievable for all airports with at least 1,000 annual non - propelle r departures and notes the commenter did not provide justification for increasing the threshold to 2,000. DEPART_CUTOFF - Set different departure cut - offs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 3 We are not certain that the threshold of this proposal should be based on airline departure data. Airline schedules are dynamic systems that are not only altered seasonally, but must accommodate volatility as well. Based on this, some airports would fall i n and out of the scope of the rule perhaps several times within a calendar year. We would also like to clarify that currently, the EPA’s scoping proposal does not differentiate according to the type of “jet” departure. This could inadvertently include mili tary aircraft and arrive at an inaccurate total jet departure figure. For further clarification on the scope, the EPA has produced a highly confusing 15step process to provide guidance in making the annual departures determination. We propose that this pro cess be simplified, and accommodate for the unpredictability that comes with the aviation industry. We would also support basing the scope threshold on something completely different than aircraft movement, such as ADF usage or well documented snow or free zing precipitation days (SOFP). Response: EPA has retained the stipulation that primary airports that deice and have at least 1,000 annual non propeller aircraft departures are in scope of the final rule. After reviewing available data EPA has decided to base the applicability for the NSPS collection requirement on both geographic location and departures. See the preamble for further discussion on this decision. See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 27. DEPART_CUTO FF - Set different departure cut - offs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 9 Throughout the TDD and its supporting studies, the EPA uses annual departures as a surrogate for a variety of airport characteristics. The size of the hypothetical deicing pads at LGA and JFK, the estimated costs of deicing pads generally, and the estimated size and cost of holding tanks are all based in large part on the number of annual aircraft departures at various airports.16 It appears that EPA considers this number t o be an adequate measure of “throughput” that then can be used to determine the capital investments and airport layout changes needed to comply with the Proposed Rule. As stated previously and in our later comments, however, annual departures are not a val id measure of an airport’s deicing characteristics, needs for deicing facilities, or deicing facilities’ costs. Response: After reviewing available data EPA has decided to base the applicability for the NSPS collection requirement on both geographic loc ation and departures. See the preamble for further discussion on this decision. EPA has decided not to promulgate a uniform requirement for collection of available ADF so the commenter’s concerns about the cost and size estimates associated with deicing pads are no longer relevant.301 DEPART_CUTOFF - Set different departure cut - offs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 7 Page 44681, Figure IV - 1. Scope of regulation should not exclude airports with over 1,000 jet departures but less than 10,000 depar tures. Several hundred gallons of ADF may be used on a single commercial airplane. If a facility has 9,000 annual departures, this could potentially result in the untreated discharge of in excess of a million gallons of ADF in a year. This amount could cau se significant damage to waters of the United States. Response: For the final regulation, EPA has modified the cutoff for the NSPS ADF collection/discharge requirement. Specifically EPA has decided to base the applicability for the NSPS collection requi rement on both geographic location and departures. See the preamble for further discussion on this decision. EPA notes that this technology - based rule is not the only basis for a permitting authority to impose effluent limitations. In addition to the tec hnology - based requirements promulgated here, the CWA requires the permitting authority to require any more stringent limitation to meet applicable water quality standards. There water quality based effluent limitations supplement these technology - based ru les to ensure that the receiving waters are protected. There are examples of such limits in some airport’s permits and this rule would not prevent that from continuing to occur. DEPART_CUTOFF - Set different departure cut - offs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 16 Page 44690, Section VII.D.3.b.i., Table VII - 2. Effluent limitations should be applicable to all airports that deice. All airports should collect and treat contaminated storm water runoff to the best of its ability. If 60% is the best possible collection le vel, then all airports should make efforts to collect and treat 60%. Response: When considering a regulation, the Clean Water Act requires that EPA must develop regulatory options that reflect best available technically economically achievable for the i ndustry. For the final rule, EPA determined that a uniform collection requirement of ADF was not BAT. See the Preamble for more detail on this determination. Today's rule provides environmental benefit while maintaining technical and economic achievabili ty. EPA reviewed available comments on the collection of spent ADF at existing airports, and determined that control of ADF is best left to a BPJ where it can be set on a site by site basis. DEPART_CUTOFF - Set different departure cut - offs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 26 The Proposed Thresholds are Generally Poor Reflections of Significant Deicing. EPA proposes thresholds for applicability of the ELG requirements based on annual scheduled commercial air carrier jet, total departures, and n ormalized ADF usage. These departure metrics are problematic for a number of reasons: (1) Departure numbers are subject to frequent changes and fluctuations; (2) Airports are generally not familiar with nor do they track “scheduled commercial air carrier j et departures;” and (3) These departure metrics are unrelated to actual deicing activities. Most important of these reasons, departure - based thresholds are irrelevant to actual deicing activities. EPA explained that the 1,000 annual scheduled commercial ai r carrier jet departures was established based on the belief that those airports falling below the threshold “have a higher proportion of propeller - aircraft flights, which are typically delayed or cancelled during icing conditions.” (EPA, 2009) However, th ere is no basis for this assertion. In fact,302 many commercial air carriers rely on turboprop aircraft as essential components of their fleet mix, including operations in all weather conditions. The proposed 1,000 annual scheduled commercial air carrier jet departure threshold is inappropriate for the proposed ELG. If EPA intends to exclude certain airports from the rule based on the fact that they use less ADF, EPA should instead establish a scope threshold that is directly related to deicing activity. The p roposed 10,000 annual departure threshold for collection captures many airports that use only minimal amounts of ADF. There are a number of airports that meet or far exceed the departures threshold of 10,000 annually, but use minimal amounts of ADF. As not ed above, the required collection of 20 percent of “available” applied ADF will be technologically challenging, if not infeasible at these small use airports, either because they use ADF for limited defrosting or perhaps for only one or two SOFP days per y ear. Some examples of such airports that are in the scope of the Proposed Rule (along with EPA’s estimate of annual ADF usage) include: [See submittal for Table 3. In Scope Airports with Low ADF Usage] In comparison, a review of EPA’s Airport Impact Model spreadsheet indicates that 121 of 354 commercial service airports considered were excluded from the scope of the Proposed Rule because they fell below the departures thresholds.30 [Footnote 30: Airport Impact Model, EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 0631 (2008).] Some o f these airports are estimated by EPA to have significant volumes of ADF usage and no current collection in place. The following table lists the top out of scope airports in terms of EPA’s estimate of ADF usage. [See submittal for Table 4. ADF Usage by Out of Scope Airports] EPA indicates that these exclusions were based on costs and pollutant reduction to be achieved. According to EPA: not applying the 1,000 annual jet departure cutoff would only increase the volume of deicing fluid that is within the scop e of today’s proposed rule by 1 to 2 percent yet would potentially result in high costs to smaller airports that have minimal pollutant contributions. Accordingly, it is appropriate to establish this exclusion because it avoids projected significant advers e economic impacts on this segment of the industry without excluding from the national standards a significant pollutant load.31 [Footnote 31: 74 Fed. Reg. at 44,689.] The purpose of the two charts above and EPA’s quote is to demonstrate the illogical appr oach EPA used to scope the applicability of the Proposed Rule. On the one hand, airports with very little ADF usage but many flights will have to spend significant quantities of money and resources to design collection systems for de minimis quantities. On the other hand, airports with much more significant use are justifiably exempted from the proposed standards. In fact, ACI - NA agrees with EPA with regard to airports that use up to 100,000 gallons of ADF representing little benefit at significant cost. Th is further justifies the MSGP approach cited above. Response: In the final rule, EPA has maintained that airports that deice and have at least 1,000 annual non - propeller aircraft departures are in scope of the rule; these airports must discontinue the us e of urea - based pavement deicers or meet ammonia limits for their direct discharges. EPA determined the technology basis for this requirement to be feasible, available, and achievable for all airports at or above this departure level. However, based upon data provided during the public comment period, EPA agrees that the ADF collection/discharge requirement should not be solely based on departures and that airports using smaller amounts of ADF should be exempt from the collection requirements of the final rule to help minimize the economic burden of the rule. Therefore, the final rule includes an NSPS cut - off designed to ensure that new airports expected to experience significant deicing would be required to collect 60% of their available ADF. The collecti on requirement excludes ADF usage for defrost and safety deicing. DEPART_CUTOFF - Set different departure cut - offs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 27 The Thresholds Departure Data Is Difficult to Ascertain and Highly Subject to Fluctuation. I n addition to the illogical results of EPA’s proposed approach, the practical implications of EPA’s threshold persuade us that it is an ill - advised approach. The only way for an airport to determine whether it meets the303 established thresholds is to access TransStat data using a complex multi - step process provided by EPA32 [Footnote 32: Email correspondence from Eric Strassler, “Instructions for Using BTS Database” (October 6, 2009).]: 1. Go to http://transtats.bts.gov 2. Along the left side, under "Data Fin der," click on "By Mode: Aviation." 3. Then select "Air Carrier Statistics (Form 41 Traffic) - All Carriers." 4. Then select "T - 100 Segment (All Carriers)." 5. On the next screen, scroll down to the Origin section, and for the first line item, "Origin Airp ort Code," click on the "Analysis" link. 6. The next screen initially shows passenger data for each airport. Use the data filters near the top of this screen to get the overall departure figures (all aircraft). Filter Categories: Origin Filter Variables: D epPerformed Filter Statistics: Sum Filter Years: 2008 or earlier (2009 is not yet complete) Then click the ""Recalculate" button. 7. You then get a large table of departure figures with the airport codes alphabetically listed in rows, with the airport name s shown (including foreign airports). You can sort by the departure figures if desired; sort commands are along the left edge of the screen; click on "Value Descending." This table can be downloaded as a spreadsheet -- click on "Download results" near the to p of the screen. 8. To get the jet aircraft subset, click on the "Crosstabs" link along the left side of the screen. On the next screen, set the data filters as follows: Filter Rows: Origin Filter Columns: AircraftGroup Filter Variables: DepPerformed Filte r Statistics: Sum Filter Years: 2008 or earlier (2009 is not yet complete) Then click the ""Recalculate" button. 9. This generates a large table with the airport codes (but not the airport names) listed in rows, and the aircraft types displayed horizontall y. Aircraft Group codes range from 0 to 8, and jet aircraft are in groups 6, 7, and 8. These metrics are not common within the aviation industry, which generally rely on enplanements or total operations for purposes of measurement and planning. While the d ata can be gleaned from this complex process, it is illogical for EPA to instill new, meaningless metrics within the industry, particularly metrics that are unrelated to the deicing activities which are the subject to the Proposed Rule. EPA’s proposal also presents significant confusion and problems for airports that fluctuate between different categories of requirements. An airport on the boundary of a threshold will be challenged to determine what their requirements are and, more importantly, what they wi ll be in the future. Aviation is a volatile industry with operations and deicing activities at any particular airport varying year - by - year. Fluctuations in the regional aircraft fleet mix between jet aircraft and turbo props could cause an airport to move back and forth across the 1,000 departures threshold, and with little advance warning. This unpredictability leaves an airport unable to effectively plan for the future and at risk of being in non compliance with a permit requirement because of unpredictab le factors. Response: In the final rule, an airport will be required to report the number of non - propeller - driven aircraft departures when renewing their permits. Departure data is routinely maintained by airport tower staff and is also reported to the B ureau of Transportation Statistics. An airport permittee that knows it is above the 1,000 annual departure threshold, and thus within the scope of the rule, may simply report this fact to the permit authority, rather than providing the actual number. EPA h as provided a memorandum in the final record identifying step - by - step procedures on how to determine the annual non - propeller - driven (jet) aircraft departures for an airport, entitled "Directions for Downloading Aircraft Departure Data from the Bureau of T ransportation Statistics Website," DCN AD01263. DEPART_CUTOFF - Set different departure cut - offs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 32 A De Minimis Threshold Is Proposed Based on Parameters That Directly Relate to Aircraft Deicing Activities and Consider Cost - Effectiveness and Environmental Benefit. For purposes of application of the ADF collection and treatment requirements, we recommen d limiting the scope of the Proposed Rule using parameters that are commonly available, related to deicing, and not subject to frequent changes. Better parameters include hub size and number of SOFP days. Hub status is not expected to change frequently. Fo llowing EPA’s approach, SOFP days are based on approximately 30 years of weather304 records, and would also be stable over time. For example, by eliminating small, non - hub airports and those with three or fewer SOFP days, annual cost impacts would be reduced by an estimated $7.8 million while only reducing annual COD removal by 3.1 percent (or 845,500 lbs). Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1, Comment Excerpt 3. Also, EPA selected HDD days as the cut - off for NSPS, because it is more readily available and a more complete dataset than the SOFP dataset. Further, hub status is not related to ADF - contaminated stormwater, as some large hub airports are in warm climates and vice versa. E_ACHIEV - Economic achievability Comment Inf o: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1200.1 - 2 Under the Clean Water Act, Congress requires any effluent limitation guidelines established by the EPA to be “economically achievable.”4 As reflected in the methodology used by the EPA in developing the regulatory framework to limit discharge of untreated effluent ADF, the EPA has met this congressionally mandated standard. Of principal note is the EPA’s attempt to focus on deicing activities at primary airports with industry characteristics that are indicators of affordability for the various candidate con trol and treatment technologies.5 By focusing on primary airports that have more than 1,000 annual jet departures, the EPA has created regulations that are reasoned rules that adhere to explicit statutory language and congressional intent. Response: EPA concurs that the economic impact analysis report shows that EPA has met the statutory standards for the regulatory process. E_ACHIEV - Economic achievability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1200.1 - 4 When the economic costs are considered in conjunc tion with the environmental impact and benefit assessment, which found that Option 3 would result in reducing discharged pollutants by at least forty four million pounds, it is clear that the EPA has met its congressionally mandated standard. Response: EPA concurs that the economic impact analysis reports shows that EPA has met the statutory standards for the regulatory process. E_ACHIEV - Economic achievability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1203.1 - 5 Our state’s economy has been tremendously affe cted by the global recession. Thirteen percent (13%) of all jobs in Florida are tied to the aviation industry and any regulation that affects the airport system of Florida has a greater impact than it does on other states. Increased regulation, with neglig ible environmental impact, yet severe financial impact on the state’s airports is unreasonable and terribly counterproductive, especially at this time. We ask that you seriously consider Florida’s position on this issue.305 Response: Eight existing airport s in Florida are in the scope of the final rule EPA’s economic analysis for BAT regulations is based on economic achievability of the final rule across the industry, and is based on a barrier to entry analysis across the industry for new sources. We also note, however, that none of these eight airports in Florida is expected to incur any costs under the promulgated option (urea substitution). E_ACHIEV - Economic achievability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208 - 7 What guidelines will be followed to determine what is "economically achievable" at a given airport, or will "standard" guidelines be used, given that technology may exist to achieve higher or lower amounts of ADF recovery than currently proposed? Also, levels of recovery maybe more limited by cost and safety/operational issues than technology at an individual airport. For example, EPA has recommended "controls" such as glycol recovery vehicles (GRVs) be employed. The associated costs may not be "economically achievable" at some airports. Sim ilarly, the addition of GRVs will increase the number of vehicles on the airfield which in turn, could increase the risk of accidents, runways incursions, fuel spills, etc., all of which FAA is trying to reduce for both safety and economic reasons. Respo nse: The final rule does not include uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. However, EPA judges economic achievability over the affected industry as a whole. The fact that a rulemaking is not affordable for all entiti es does not mean it is not economically achievable. EPA has judged that the rule as a whole is economically achievable. Finally, the promulgated BAT option only requires substitution for urea when deicing the airfield; in general this should not increase the number of vehicles on the airfield. E_ACHIEV - Economic achievability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208 - 8 It appears that it is assumed by EPA that the proposed effluent limitation guideline represents practical, achievable glycol recovery rates based on "the best available technology economically achievable." In the event that a State agency which adopts the EPA guidelines, but then seeks to impose more stringent levels of recovery, would it be up to that agency or the airport to assess the economic feasibility of meeting the more stringent limit proposed? Response: In the final rule, EPA has not included uniform requirements for collection or treatment of ADF for existing dischargers. Those requirements will be determined by the permit writer on a site - specific basis, including an economic determination for each particular site. For new sources, the fina l rule does include ADF collection and treatment requirements. States may impose more stringent requirements than are included in the effluent guidelines and standards where necessary to meet State water quality standards. E_ACHIEV - Economic achievabili ty Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1221.1 - 8 The EPA has not included Anchorage International Airport (ANC) in the list of Tier One Airports. This is based on the erroneous assumption that ADF usage is below the 460,000 - gallon threshold. According to306 recent airport reports, the last five years have indeed averaged greater than 460,000 gallons. Assuming that for some reason these years were "above - average," years it is still likely that with increased flights ANC will quickly fall into the Tier One cat egory and thus must be included for purposes of the economic review. Due to location and construction restraints (construction only during the summer months in ANC and throughout the state of Alaska) adding a Centralized Deicing Pad (CDP) and treatment sys tem would be exceedingly costly at ANC. In fact, the EPA has determined that adding a CDP and treatment system at ANC would require costs that would be over 5% of operating revenues, exceeding the 3% revenue threshold that is established for evaluating eco nomic achievability. EPA currently estimates that only seven airports will be required to install CDP, at a cost of $45.4 million. All economic achievability reviews have been based on these assumptions. EPA must go back and determine a more accurate CDP c ost base and economic achievability status for ANC, and potentially other, airports. Without this review, we believe the new rule is invalid according to requirements of the Clean Water Act for economic achievability. Response: The final rule does not s et uniform requirements for the collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports. Therefore, this comment is not relevant to the final rule. E_ACHIEV - Economic achievability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 133 EPA’s Cost Estimates Do Not Provide Sufficient Basis for Supporting the Determination of “Economic Achievability.” As discussed at length in Section VI, above, EPA’s cost estimates are inaccurate. The Agency therefore has no reasonable basis upon which to base any economic analysis. Because it is based on highly inaccurate cost estimates, the Agency’s determination that the Proposed Rule is economically achievable

– regardless of the test used to make the determination

– is not supported by rational analysis. When proper methodology is applied (proper costs; revenue limited to aeronautical revenue), the Proposed Rule fails by a wider margin As demonstrated at length in Section VI , EPA’s cost estimates are off by a wide margin: actual costs imposed under this proposal would be much, m uch higher. This means any actual cost - revenue ratios also are much higher. EPA simply cannot make any determination of economic achievability based on the Airport Revenue Test unless it derives accurate cost estimates. Moreover, EPA uses an inappropriate denominator to calculate this ratio: total operating revenue should not be used. At a minimum, the denominator for calculation should be “aeronautical revenue;” more appropriately, it should be aeronautical revenue associated with deicing operations. These denominators will be much smaller than the total operating revenue value used in EPA’s calculation, again leading to much higher cost - revenue ratios. If EPA is to use this test, it must recalculate the ratios using accurate costs and a more appropriate me asure of airport revenues. Response: First, EPA modified some of the costing assumptions, including those associated with GCV collection and AFB treatment. However, these cost models do not impact the economic achievability of the final rule. While the Agency did receive some negative comments on how it costed product substitution, no additional data was provided by commenters to modify these calculations. Second, EPA disagrees that aeronautical revenue is the most appropriate denominator for the airport revenue test. The demand for deicing services is a derived demand; deicing operations are performed only in response to demand for the provision of air tran sportation services. Thus, the relevant benchmark for assessing the impact of the increased cost of deicing services is not the baseline cost of those services; rather it is the cost of providing air transportation services. Airlines will respond to incr eased costs for307 deicing services not based on the cost of those services themselves, but on how those additional costs affect the profitability of their flights. Therefore EPA selected airport operating revenues instead of airport aeronautical revenues as the basis for the revenue test. In general, landside revenues are not designed to provide a revenue stream to support the provision of other services or products by the airport, but instead to support the provision of air transportation services by the a irport. For example, the revenues from parking are, at a minimum, designed to support the construction and maintenance of the parking facility, not as the result of the direct demand for parking, but as a result of the demand for using air transportation services. Revenues from landside activities such as parking, retail, and food concessions frequently allow airports to accumulate capital from non - airline sources, which is then used to provide the infrastructure necessary to support the airport’s primary mission. For this reason, airports frequently use a compensatory approach to financial management. As a standard airport management text states, “because total revenues are not constrained to the amount needed to break even, and because surplus revenues are not used to reduce airline rates and charges, compensatory airports may earn and retain a substantial surplus, which can later be used for capital development.”(Wells, A.T. 1996. Airport Planning and Management . 3 rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.) Thus, the intent of these revenue streams is also to support the provision of air transportation services and is therefore a component of an airport’s resources relevant to the airport implementation of these effluent limitati ons guidelines. Of 191 in - scope airports that answered question B6 of EPA's Airport Deicing Survey Questionnaire, 68 percent use a compensatory or hybrid approach to financial management; and 60 percent of airports use a compensatory approach to rate sett ing for concession areas. Furthermore, in practice, not all revenue accrued through compensatory rate setting on the landside is used to fund capital expenditures, 107 airports also indicated on the survey that they use landside revenues to pay airside e xpenses. A review of airport financial statements indicated that airports might use landside revenues to offset airside costs through a number of channels. EPA found online the methodology for determining airport rates and charges and 5 large and 1 small hubs. At these airports, airline payments are offset by a portion of airport income (including income from sources such as parking and concessions) in excess of airport operating costs. In addition to direct airline credits from airport income, accrued net revenues might find their way back to meet airline or airside costs through a number of channels. Airport net income is typically deposited into a number of accounts, such as debt service, provide operating and maintenance reserves, renewal and replac ement, development, and discretionary funds. In various financial statements (e.g., Wayne County Airport Authority, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport) it can be seen that these funds have been tapped to offset airline costs without increa sing rates and charges. Similarly, in 2002 authorities at Boston’s Logan Airport covered an operating deficit by increasing parking rates rather than increasing airline rates and charges. Thus, the claim that aeronautical revenues are the appropriate ref lection of airport resources to cover costs resulting from this effluent guideline is not only contradicted by logic (i.e., if airport revenues from non aeronautical sources are not used to support the airports’ mission of providing air transportation serv ices, then what are they used for?), but by airport practice as well. E_ACHIEV - Economic achievability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 22 EPA’s cost estimates fundamentally fail to account for key factors that drive Boston - Logan’s costs to be dramatically more than EPA projected. Massport’s experts recalculated the costs to comply with the Proposed Rule taking these essential factors into account. This results in a total cost estimate of over $1.65 billion for the three - pad scenario, which i s 22 times EPA’s estimate (see Table B below). As documented herein, there are several key reasons for this enormous cost. First, the deicing pads constructed under the three - pad scenario (if they could be permitted) would be orders of magnitude more308 costl y due to the exorbitant costs of creating filled land, as described above in Section V.C.2. Second, storage tanks will be far more costly due to site - specific costs of construction, based on Massport’s experience in constructing four fuel tanks in 1997 - 199 8, as described in Section V.E. Finally, the AFB treatment costs will be much higher because Boston 183 Technical Development Document at p. 11 - 23. 185 Technical Development Document at p. 11 - 26. 187 Technical Development Document at 11 - 17. 188 ERG, Estima ted Capital and O&M Costs for Centralized Deicing Pads, EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 0845, at 2. 189 EPA, Cost Annualization Model, EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 0634. Logan will not be able to treat a significant portion of deicing runoff with AFB, as discussed in Section V I. Table B shows the differences between EPA’s estimated costs and Boston - Logan’s estimated costs. Table B: Estimates of Capital Costs for BAT Installation (CDP + AFB) [See submittal for table comparing EPA estimated CDP + AFB capital costs with Massport's estimate] Notes: 1 EPA summarizes annualized costs per airport at Table 11 - 1 of the Technical Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category. The estimates used to arrive at the figures in T able 11 - 1 are reflected in this column are based on the net present value (“NPV”) of estimated costs in 2006 dollars. 2 This column provides EPA’s cost estimates without net present valuation for comparison with Massport’s corrected estimates in the column to the right. 3 This estimate reflects EPA’s estimate of non - annualized capital costs. Table 11 - 1 (see footnote 1) presents an annualized estimate. *This estimate reflects EPA’s estimate and has not been independently calculated by Massport. Boston Logan’ s costs would likely be much higher. Response: See Response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1221.1

– 8 (Economic Achievability). E_ACHIEV - Economic achievability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 51 In Table 11 - 1 of the Technical Document and in Table 5 - 3, Option 3, of the Economic Analysis Document, the EPA estimated the cost of complying with the proposed rule for each airport. When our membership was polled as to whether they would be able to meet these costs, over 60 percent were uncertain to the total costs that would be required of them, therefore leading to uncertainty on how to budget for such requirements. Nearly one quarter of these individuals believed that the EPA had not accurately predicted what the financial obligation of the air port might be. Several airports have already invested millions in infrastructure and stated that this proposal would require an even greater investment in order to comply. Many fear that although they believe they may be able to meet these requirements now , the additional infrastructure costs in the future, not taken into consideration by the EPA, will have long - term financial implications for them. In an industry that is already highly regulated, especially regarding stormwater (and wastewater) issues, we do not believe that unnecessary changes are warranted. Response: EPA finds that the promulgated BAT option, substitution of non - urea pavement deicers, has minimal impacts on existing infrastructure since neither collection nor storage of spent ADF is re quired. EPA cannot address a comment concerning unidentified future infrastructure costs. E_ACHIEV - Economic achievability Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 110 EPA identified two measures to judge the economic achievability of the proposed rule on affected airports: Debt Service Coverage Ratio and Ratio of annualized compliance costs to operating revenues.267 Debt Service Coverage Ratio measure is lower than the Port Authority Bond Coverage309 Ratio. An airport must maintain good financial standing to be able to issue GARB debt. EPA correctly states that airports have financial requirements written into the controlling documents that establish and govern the Port Aut hority, which include limitations on the airport’s Debt Service Coverage Ratio (“DSCR”). If the DSCR does not remain above a certain threshold, the authority would default on its debt. EPA assumes that although this threshold might vary in general, the app licable standard among airports affected by the rule is that the DSCR must remain above 1.25.268 EPA determined that if an airport or multi - airport authority had a pre - regulatory DSCR greater than or equal to 1.25, but a post regulatory DSCR less than 1.25 , the airport or airport authority would be significantly impacted by the regulation.269 In its issuance of the Proposed Rule, EPA used a standard DSCR threshold of 1.25. However, in the case of the Port Authority, its Board of Commissioners requires in it s Consolidated Bond Resolution that prior to the issuance of additional series of Consolidated Bonds, the combined net revenues over a prior twelve month period exceed the future maximum annual debt service by at least 1.3 times. As a result, even if the P ort Authority passes the DSCR measure determined by EPA and the agency would not be significantly impacted by the Proposed Rule, unless the DSCR is greater than or equal to 1.3, the Port Authority would not be able to issue debt to finance the capital expe nditures required under the Proposed Rule. EPA falsely assumes that an airport would not necessarily see its financial health significantly weakened if the airport’s post - regulatory DSCR fell below the 1.25 threshold. According to EPA, rates and charges co uld be raised by a larger amount, debt might be restructured, and airports might have opportunities to pay for capital expenditures without incurring debt, such as “pay - as - you - go” funded through rates and charges or passenger facility charges.270 None of t hese alternatives are available for the Port Authority. The Port Authority has signed agreements with the airlines at all three major airports with clear terms for the recovery of costs. These agreements cannot be modified before 2018 in EWR or 2023 at JFK and LGA. The agreements define the methodology for recovery of operating, maintenance and capital costs at the airports. Beyond these signed flight fee agreements, the Port Authority (along with all airports) is limited in its cost recovery formula by the 1996 FAA Rates and Charges Policy, which states that airports’ fees may not exceed current operating costs and historic capital costs. Therefore, rates and charges cannot be raised by a larger amount to guarantee that the DSCR does not fall below the thre shold as recommend in EPA’s analysis. It is crucial for EPA to understand that the Port Authority airports do not have the opportunity or ability to pay for capital expenditures on a “pay - as - you - go” basis. As EPA states in the economic analysis, it is very unlikely that passenger facility charges could be available to finance the capital expenditures required with this ruling because they require FAA approval on a project - specific basis and in the case of the Port Authority, PFCs are committed into the futu re.271 Absent from EPA analysis is the dwindling of Congressionally funded FAA AIP monies for airport capital projects. In addition, the FAA has not ruled on its proposal to permit the operator of a congested airport to incorporate the cost of airfield fac ilities under construction into its landing fees. Therefore, the Port Authority would have to incur capital expenses up front and include this capital cost as a component of the airports’ flight fees once the projects have been completed. Only after the pr oject has been financed and completed would the Port Authority collect higher flight fees from the airlines. The Port Authority maintains a strong position that EPA’s analysis of economic feasibility to implement this Proposed Rule is fundamentally flawed, and EPA must fully reassess its analysis prior to issuance of a final rule. Ratio of Annualized Compliance Costs to Operating Revenues. EPA compared the ratio of total annualized compliance costs to total operating revenues for each airport to determine t he impact of the selected options on airport revenues. EPA considered the option affordable if fewer than 100 affected airports, or less than 20 percent of the total, incurred compliance costs that exceeded 3 percent of operating revenues.272 According to the results, under the proposed option, 80 percent of in scope airports are projected to incur costs less than 1 percent of revenues; therefore EPA considered its selected option affordable.273 This approach by EPA is inappropriate and cannot be used becau se it groups the compliance costs for all airports together regardless of the collection threshold. The results are grouped by BAT option (Options 1, 2, 3 and 4);274 each option specifies the BAT to be used for each collection requirement. As a result, in presenting the results for Option 3, EPA’s selected option,275 and determining whether the Best Alternative Technology is affordable, the analysis combined the airports310 that have to install deicing pads with those that are only required to use GRVs. If a l arger number of the airports in the sample have to use GRVs, then the rule applied by EPA will be skewed to the affordability option. For instance, if out of ten airports considered, eight have to install GRV and two have to install deicing pads, following EPA’s rule, one could conclude that 80 percent of the airports can afford the BAT option proposed, even if the two airports that have to install deicing pads cannot afford it. Considering the major investments associated with installing deicing pads, the Port Authority maintains that EPA’s methodology to determine the affordability of the Proposed Rule measure is egregiously flawed. In addition, as it has been discussed elsewhere in these comments, the results are based on data selected from different year s. Annualized compliance costs are estimated in 2006 dollars and operating revenues are in 2004 dollars, based on data gathered through the Airport Deicing Survey. In addition, the survey stated that if the owner/certificate holder is a city government, th e revenue to be reported should be the total revenue for the city. Due to its aforementioned consolidated nature, the revenue reported by the Port Authority represented the total revenue for the agency and not the revenue generated by each of its airport f acilities. For all three Port Authority airports potentially affected by this Proposed Rule, the answers provided to the survey were the same. Therefore, the revenue base used to calculate the Ratio of Annualized Compliance Costs to Operating Revenues was the same for each airport (total Port Authority revenue), which clearly overstates the affordability of the option at each airport. Even if the three potentially affected Port Authority airports were considered as a single system, and the combined cost imp act of the Proposed Rule at all three airports were compared to the total revenue base, the inclusion of the revenues from the non - aviation Port Authority facilities would skew the numbers towards the affordable result. However, under the rubric of the Pro posed Rule, the burden of these additional costs would be borne by the airlines entirely in accordance with the flight fee agreements at each airport. Even if one incorrectly used the total Port Authority revenue to calculate the test, the Port Authority o verall would pass this test because of its diverse and unrelated revenue sources, but the airlines would be unduly burdened. Further, the additional cost burden when fully loaded with the cost of acquiring land and the cost of recovered chemical treatment could make the provision of service at the Port Authority airports unaffordable to the airlines. This would create an unacceptable and untenable situation for the airlines, the Port Authority, and the flying public of the New York/New Jersey region and bey ond. The table below calculates the ratio of annualized costs to operating revenues using the Port Authority estimated costs discussed above and 2009 revenue for each airport. [See submittal for table comparing EPA and Port Authority ratio of annualized co sts and O&M.] Following EPA erroneous guidelines to determine the impact of the selected options on airport revenues,276 the Proposed Rule compliance option places a heavy burden on LGA, since the calculated ratio is larger than 3 percent. Following EPA’s methodology, because the result of the test is larger than 1 percent but lesser than 3 percent for JFK and EWR, the option would be considered affordable for these airports if only a few airports are affected and the majority incurs costs less than one per cent of revenues. As discussed previously, the Port Authority considers this approach inappropriate because the analysis combines airports with different collection and investment requirements. As noted previously in these comments, the capital costs assoc iated with on - site treatment or long - term storage are not included, so the costs and ratios would be higher than those presented, making the option not affordable at any of the airports. This is another critical analysis that EPA must readdress prior to pr omulgating any final deicing ELG standards. Response: Much of the Port Authority’s comments are moot under the option EPA selected as a basis for promulgation. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA proposed an option under which the Port Authority’s EWR, JFK, and LGA airports would have been required to meet a 60 percent collection and treatment option. However, the final rule does not set uniform collection or treatment requirements for ADF with respect to existing airports, but only sets requirements for control of discharges from airfield deicing. On ly one airport owned by the Port Authority, Stewart International, is projected to incur costs under this option. These costs are all operating costs, are projected to average $60,000 per year (2006311 dollars), and will compose less than 1 percent of that a irport’s revenues. EWR, JFK, and LGA are expected to incur no costs and therefore no impacts under the promulgated rule. However, because of a number of misperceptions contained in the comment, EPA will respond in more detail nonetheless. First, the Port Authority states EPA erred in using a 1.25 DSCR to evaluate the Port Authority because its minimum DSCR is 1.3. In fact, EPA used a DSCR of 1.3 to evaluate the Port Authority as can be verified in the model placed in the docket. The Port Authority’s DSC R did not fall below 1.3 assuming either 100 percent or zero percent cost pass - through to its airlines. Second, based on its understanding of the survey, the Port Authority provided total revenues for all airports it owns, but argues that that is an inc orrect basis for evaluating impacts to its airports. However, this was not in fact the approach that EPA used. EPA considers the Port Authority as the relevant airport owner/operator, not the City of New York (note that the comment itself makes clear tha t the Port Authority is responsible for financing and operating the airports, and that airline use agreements are made with the Port Authority, not the city). Therefore, EPA examined the Port Authority’s publicly available Financial Statements and Annual Reports. EPA performed the DSCR analysis at the level of the entire Port Authority because, based on a review of the Authority’s financial statements, EPA believes that is how the Authority performs the analysis. In addition, EPA used airport - specific re venues from the financial statements and airport - specific projected costs to perform the “revenue test” separately for each airport; it did not use aggregate revenues from all Authority airports for the test, nor did it use revenues from any non - aviation f acilities in this test. Third, the Port Authority states that EPA falsely assumes an airport would not be financially weakened if its DSCR fell below 1.25. EPA did not intend to minimize the impacts to an airport if its DSCR falls below the default thres hold. The DSCR model shows a possible outcome when an airport incurs the specified compliance costs if that airport makes no changes to its operations or financial structure. However, this should not necessarily result in closure of the airport because t he airport’s DSCR will differ at the time the rule is promulgated due to the actual financial conditions by the time the rule is promulgated and the airport starts undertaking steps to comply. The results of the DSCR test are a warning that an airport mig ht have to try to adjust its operations and/or financial structure to avoid this outcome that might occur sometime in the future. EPA acknowledges that each airport might face its own constraints in how it might be able to protect its credit - worthiness. E PA also notes that under the promulgated rule the Port Authority should be in no danger of default since three of its commercial service airports are projected to incur zero compliance costs (e.g., they will not have to purchase land, incur long - term stora ge costs, or chemical treatment costs), and the fourth is projected to incur operating (but no capital) costs associated with urea substitution on the order of $60,000 per year (2006 dollars). Because no construction should be required to meet the promulga ted rule, the issue of whether congested airports may incorporate construction costs in their landing fees is moot as far as this rule is concerned. Fourth, EPA did not use costs from 2006 and revenues from 2004 to perform the economic analyses. EPA used the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Producer Price Index for Air Transportation to adjust costs and revenues to the same year. Additionally, EPA did not use prevailing bond rates to assess impacts of incremental option costs on affected entities; instead it u sed the Office of Management and Budget's suggested real discount rate of 7 percent to represent the opportunity cost of the capital needed to meet the rule requirements. EPA also explicitly assumed and stated that airports would not be able to use FAA AIP funds to finance capital expenditures. Finally, the comment raises issues concerning how EPA judges economic achievability. For the final rule analysis, EPA agrees that it should not (and we do not) rely on the RFA guidance as justification for thresho lds for the economic achievability of the rule (paraphrased by the commenter as: “EPA considered312 the option affordable if fewer than 100 affected airports, or less than 20 percent of the total, incurred compliance costs that exceeded 3 percent of operating revenues.”) For the final rule, EPA appropriately looked at and cited the revenue test for non - profit entities as recommended in "Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses" (EPA 240 - R - 00 - 003). Furthermore, the financial assessment did not rely solely o n the revenue test, but examined multiple indicators such as airports’ ability to incur debt, and impacts to airports’ ultimate community, the passengers that use the air transportation provided at the airport in the form of cost per enplaned passenger as are also specified in the Guidelines. EPA judges economic achievability over the universe of affected entities as a whole. The fact that a rulemaking might result in substantial financial impacts to some entities does not mean the effluent guideline is n ot economically achievable. EPA has judged that, although there may be some affordability issues in a limited number of cases, the rule as a whole is economically achievable. It should also be noted that the specific example cited in the comment is projec ted to incur no costs or impacts under the final rule. The comment suggests that EPA should have divided in - scope facilities into different subcategories (i.e., airports required to meet the 60 percent collection and treatment threshold versus airports r equired to meet the 20 percent collection and treatment threshold). Assessing economic impacts separately for each of those subcategories, is not applicable to the final rule. As mentioned, the final rule does not set uniform ADF collection or treatment requirements for existing airports, and all new airports must meet the same ADF collection and treatment requirements under the final rule. E_AIRLINES - Economic analysis for airlines general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 134 EPA Must Evaluate the Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule on Airlines EPA states that it has “chosen” to evaluate the impacts of the proposed regulation on air carriers in addition to airports.343 The Proposed Rule imposes direct and indirect economic imp acts on airlines and economic analysis of these impacts is not a matter of choice, but required. EPA must evaluate the economic impacts of the Proposed Rule on airlines and, if it finds the Proposed Rule is not “economically achievable” for airlines, it is not legally sustainable. a. Airlines Hold Permits Governing Discharges from Deicing Operations EPA mistakenly characterizes impacts to airlines as “secondary,” stating that an “airport is typically the holder of the NDPES permit and thus responsible for c ollection and treatment of ADF - contaminated stormwater,” while “air carriers that use the airport are occasionally copermittees, but never the principal permittee at the airport.” 344 This characterization of impacts to airlines as “secondary” is incorrect for at least two reasons. First, airlines hold NPDES permits governing discharges from deicing activities. Airlines are not just “occasionally co - permittees” at airports that they serve. EPA and delegated states have provided the MSGP (which has been avai lable since 1995 and is now in its second reissuance) under Section S of which airports and airlines may obtain permit coverage. Airlines have frequently obtained coverage under this permit, as recorded in EPA’s Permit Compliance System and other EPA datab ases (which we hereby request be included as a part of the administrative record for this rulemaking). In addition to coverage under the MSGP, airlines also are often co - permittees with airports they serve under individual permits. The Agency can identify these cases by reference to its own databases and communications with delegated state permitting agencies. In addition, airlines do hold individual NPDES permits governing deicing activities wholly separate from those held by the airport.345 In short, cont rary to EPA’s assertion, airlines frequently are permitted separately from the airport under a general permit, are copermitted with an airport under an individual permit, or permitted under NPDES permits entirely separate from the permit held by the airpor t. The suggestion that the permitting of airlines in this industry is anomalous is simply incorrect. Second, the term “principal permittee” has no meaning under the CWA or EPA’s NPDES permitting regulations. Indeed EPA explains that “compliance with enviro nmental313 regulations may be shared between airlines and airports as co - permittees.” 346 The MSGP, for example, makes no mention of a distribution of responsibilities based on whether a permit holder is an airport or an airline. Moreover, while the terms of individual permits vary, we are aware of individual permits that impose overall planning and analysis obligations on both the airport and the airlines that serve it. Certainly that is the case where an airline holds an individual permit that addresses airl ine - specific outfalls and that is entirely separate from the permit held by the airport. In any event, obligations imposed by permits held by airlines are no less enforceable against co - permittee airlines than they are against the airport permittees. Airl ines and airports are both named permittees for deicing discharge and EPA must consider economic impacts to both. Response: EPA agrees that airlines that are permittees at an airport should be included in the economic impact analysis. EPA has performed this analysis for the final rule and it is included in Section 5.7 of the Economic Analysis for Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (EPA 821 - R - 12 - 004). E_AIRLINES - Economic analysis for airlines general co mments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 135 EPA Practice and Policy Is to Assess the Economic Impacts of Regulations Applicable to Government Entities on the Community that Pays the Compliance Costs In prior ELGs and guidance, EPA has affirmed that, where a regulation applies directly to a governmental entity, it must assess the economic impact on the community that will pay for the compliance costs. In its Economic Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfill s Point Source Category,347 [FOOTNOTE: 347 EPA, Office of Water, EPA - 821 - B - 99 - 005 (November 1999) (hereinafter “EA for Landfills ELG”).] EPA affirmed: The appropriate test for each facility depends on the type of facility in question. The facility impact a nalysis distinguishes between two types of non - hazardous waste landfills depending on ownership: privately - owned and municipally - owned landfills. 348 [FOOTONOTE:348 EA for Landfills ELG at 4 - 2.] The impact analysis subjected municipally - owned landfills to two impacts tests based on median household income... Median household income is an appropriate measure of scale against which to compare compliance costs. The costs incurred by municipally - owned landfills...fall primarily upon the landfills’ household cu stomers.... Therefore, this facility impact analysis uses the ratio of compliance costs to household income to estimate the impact on... each municipality that owns a landfill.349 [FOOTNOTE:349 EA for Landfills ELG at 4 - 10. In fact, EPA concluded comparing costs to household income was appropriate here even though 20% of wastes handled by the landfills were generated by industrial, not household sources (i.e., even though households did not bear all costs).] In its most recent Guidelines for Preparing Econo mic Analyses, EPA states explicitly that in assessing the impact of regulations “when government entities are involved, the ultimate measure is the ability of its citizens to pay for the requirements.”350 [FOOTNOTE:350 Document - 0623 at 156 (emphasis added ).] Thus, where an ELG impacts a government entity the purpose of an economic analysis is not to assess the ability of government entities to pay for compliance costs. This is because governments have the authority to levy taxes and fees to cover regulator y compliance costs and it is, therefore, necessary to assess the economic impacts on the community that bears those costs.351 [FOOTNOTE:351 EPA Office of Water, EPA - 823 - B - 95 - 002 at 2 - 1, (March 1995) (hereinafter “Interim WQS Economic Guidance”). Government s have the authority to levy taxes and distribute pollution control costs among households and businesses according to the tax base. Similarly, sewage authorities charge for services, and thus can recover pollution control costs through users fees. In both cases, a substantial impact will usually affect the wider community. Whether or not the community faces substantial impacts depends on both the cost of the pollution control and the general financial and economic health of the community. If the public ent ity passes a significant portion of the pollution control costs along to private facilities or firms, then the314 review procedures outlined in Chapter 3 of this workbook should also be consulted to determine the impact on the private entities.] The purpose o f the analysis is to assess the impact on those that will pay the increased taxes or fees, which in this rulemaking

– as EPA acknowledges

– are the airlines.352 [FOOTNOTE:352 Interim WQS Economic Guidance at 2 - 5: It is important to first define the affecte d community. The "community" is the governmental jurisdiction responsible for paying compliance costs. In practice, pollution control projects may serve several communities or just portions of a community. In the case of a sewage agency serving several com munities, once project costs are allocated to each community served, the economic analysis is conducted on a community by community basis. In the case of a community in which only a portion of the community is served, the affected community is defined as t hose who will pay the compliance costs. In such cases, it may be difficult to obtain socioeconomic data for just part of the community and data for the entire community may be used instead.] Stated differently, the community that will pay for the complianc e costs incurred by an airport as a result of this rulemaking is the community of airlines at the airport. Indeed, EPA affirms that where costs imposed on government entities are borne by “users . . . this needs to be taken into account” and if “some of th e costs are borne by local firms, then that portion of the costs needs to be handled separately.”353 Response: For the airport deicing effluent guidelines, the affected community differs substantially from the examples cited from the Interim WQS Economic Guidance. Airports are almost never supported by direct general taxes, and thus projecting the impact of increased taxes to members of the community in which the airport is located is not appropriate for this effluent guideline; in this case, the relevan t community is defined by those that use the airport: the airlines and their passengers. EPA analyzed impacts to the passengers that use airline services at the affected airport, which is found in Section 5.3 (Cost per Enplaned Passenger) of the Economic Analysis for Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category . Although it is impossible to plausibly determine the median income of this community, EPA is confident that the cost per community member is so small that an y impact can only be reasonably described as insignificant. EPA also examined the impact of the rule on the cost of the supply of airline services to affected airports. This analysis is found in Section 5.6 (Impacts to Airline Cost per Available Seat Mile) of the same document. This analysis was performed on both an airport - specific basis (i.e., each airport’s annualized compliance costs divided by ASM on flights leaving from that airport) and a system wi de basis (i.e., compliance costs per system ASM). The latter analysis compares the increased cost per ASM resulting from the rule with airlines’ baseline cost per ASM. In essence, this measures the vertical shift in the supply curve (the decrease in suppl y of air transportation services) resulting from the rule. Under the costs projected for the promulgated rule, these measures were generally found to be negligible. EPA makes no assumption concerning what percent of compliance costs, if any, will be pa ssed through to airlines or their passengers. The results of these two analyses suggest that if 100 percent of costs are passed through to either stakeholder, the impacts will not be significant. Finally, EPA performed an analysis of the impact of the ru le on airline income for that subset of airlines that are co - permittees at an airport. This analysis is included in Section 5.7 of the Economic Analysis for Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category . E_AIRLINES - Economic analysis for airlines general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 136 EPA Affirms that the Compliance Costs Imposed Under the Proposed Rule Are Borne by Airlines EPA repeatedly acknowledges that, as a practical matter, the compliance costs imposed by the Proposed Regulation would be borne by airlines. “In the long run, air c arriers (and their passengers) pay for much of the airport’s infrastructure and operating expenses.”354 In the EA, EPA observes: In summary, the315 impression from analyzing the industry and its financial and market structure and reviewing the literature, is that most airport costs, both capital and operating, will eventually be passed through to airlines and/or their customers. 355 As discussed below, how much, if any, of the costs imposed by the Proposed Rule are “passed through” from airlines to their custo mers is relevant to how the impacts on airlines are assessed. The relevant question here, however, is whether the impacts on airlines must be assessed. In this context, it is enough to point out that EPA itself emphasizes that airlines have been unable to pass through increased fuel costs to passengers and concludes “[i]t appears that [at] least in the short run, it is difficult in today’s business climate for airlines to pass through a significant percentage of costs to their passengers.”356 Moreover, the only circumstances in which EPA asserts compliance costs would not be borne by airlines are hypothetical extremes. In fact, its economic analysis is predicated on the assumption that airports will finance compliance costs by imposing increased rates and ch arges, in the form of landing fees on airlines.357 This is dispositive: If EPA’s model assumes that costs are imposed on airlines through landing fees, analyzing the economic impacts on airlines is not a matter of choice. Just as municipalities own and ope rate landfills and the costs are borne by the households they serve, governmental entities (primarily municipalities) own and operate airports and the costs are borne by the airlines they serve. It follows that appropriate impact analysis of this Proposed Rule must evaluate the impact on airlines, just as the EA for the Landfill ELG evaluated the impact on households. Response: EPA’s analysis is not based on the assumption that costs will be passed through to either airlines or their passengers. EPA also performed a sensitivity analysis for the DSCR in which costs are passed through to airlines. EPA performed two additional analyses that considered impacts to customers. First, in Section 5.6 (Impacts to Airline Cost per Available Seat Mile) of the Eco nomic Analysis for Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and in the Impact Extrapolation Memorandum, EPA examined the impact on the cost of air transportation services as measured by compliance costs divided by Available Seat Mile (ASM). This analysis was performed on both an airport - specific basis (i.e., each airport’s annualized compliance costs divided by ASM on flights leaving from that airport) and a system wide basis (i.e., compliance costs per system ASM ). The latter analysis compares the increased cost per ASM resulting from the rule with airlines’ baseline cost per ASM. In essence, this measures the vertical shift in the supply curve (the decrease in supply of air transportation services) resulting fro m the rule. Under the costs projected for the promulgated rule, these measures were generally found to be negligible. Second, EPA analyzed projected compliance costs per enplaned passenger at each airport. This analysis is found in Section 5.3 (Cost pe r Enplaned Passenger) of the Economic Analysis for Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and in the Impact Extrapolation Memorandum . Again, EPA found that costs per enplaned passenger are generally negligible u nder the promulgated rule. In each of these analyses, the calculations are equivalent to an implicit assumption of 100 percent cost pass - through to the airlines (when analyzing cost per ASM) or passengers (when analyzing cost per enplaned passenger). Ho wever, EPA makes no assumption concerning what percent of compliance costs, if any, will be passed through to airlines or their passengers. The results suggest that if 100 percent of costs are passed through to either stakeholder, the impacts will not be significant.316 E_AIRLINES - Economic analysis for airlines general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 108 In light of the airline industry’s precarious financial condition and fuel - price - induced capacity cuts, airport operators, includi ng the Port Authority, have received letters from airlines asking them to work with the airlines to identify ways to meaningfully reduce costs. In the wake of previous short - term crises like September 11th, many airports such as ours worked to defer capit al investment where appropriate, identify additional sources of federal funding, and use PFCs to fund airport improvement projects that the airlines would otherwise agree to cost - share or pay for outright. The Port Authority, like most airport operators in the United States, has been looking for ways to address these challenges, keeping in mind that the Port Authority must maintain its primary and essential commitment to the travelers and the communities it serves to provide the infrastructure to maintain r egional economic prosperity, and efficiently and cost - effectively meet current and future demand. Under the current economic conditions, new capital investments that do not translate into significant savings, and/or operational efficiencies, or on the cont rary increase the costs for airlines will certainly be met with great resistance from the airline community. The Port Authority, with a long history of airport facility operation and extensive interaction with the airline community, has experienced this fr equently in the past. We believe that the airlines serving our airports will be particularly resistant because (as discussed in our later comments) the environmental benefits derived from the Proposed Rule would be minor at best compared to the significant capital and operational costs. The Port Authority estimated the incremental cost for the airlines as a result of complying with the EPA Proposed Rule, using the capital and operating costs estimated by EPA and those estimated by the Port Authority. The fo llowing tables present the calculations: [see submittal for table comparing EPA and Port Authority estimated capital costs] Source: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey For purposes of comparison, in this calculation EPA costs have been escalated to 2 009 dollars. Capital costs were escalated using the Construction Index for New York published by the Engineering News - Record,258 and operating and maintenance costs were escalated using the Consumer Price Index for the New York City region.259 Assuming the costs calculated by the Port Authority (which as was noted before, are still greatly understated because they do not include the opportunity cost of the land or the costs of on - site treatment facilities), complying with the EPA ruling would significantly increase the cost of airline use of Port Authority airport facilities. The airlines would see a 4 percent increase in their flight fee at EWR, 6.3 percent at JFK and approximately 8 percent at LGA. The airlines would be extremely reluctant to agree to pay for these additional costs and, as has been discussed earlier, the Port Authority cannot, and would not, undertake these investments in the near future without deferring other critical, more vital, investments in its airport facilities. Current cost recove ry agreements with the airlines and the 1996 FAA Rates and Charges Policy limit the cost - recovery formulas applied by the Port Authority. According to the FAA policy, airports’ fees may not exceed current operating costs and historic capital costs. Therefo re, even if airlines pay for the incremental operating and capital costs associated with the Proposed Rule, the opportunity costs for land availability and the potential increase in delays would have to be borne solely by the Port Authority. [FOOTNOTE: 258 http://enr.construction.com/economics/default.asp accessed February 2, 2010.] [FOOTNOTE: 259 http://data.bls.gov/cgi - bin/surveymost accessed February 2, 2010] Response: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA proposed an option under which the Port A uthority’s EWR, JFK, and LGA airports would have been required to collect and treat 60 percent of ADF used for aircraft deicing. However, in the final rule, EPA has no longer included a uniform requirement for collection and treatment of ADF used for aircr aft deicing at existing airports. For existing airports, the final rule now only contains a requirement regarding airfield pavement deicers Only one airport owned by the Port Authority, Stewart International, is projected to incur costs under this pavemen t deicer requirement, and these costs are small

– they are projected to average $60,000 per year (2006 dollars) and will compose317 less than 1 percent of that airport’s revenues. Therefore, the Port Authority’s comments on the projected impacts of the propo sed rule, including the costs of land availability for ADF collection and treatment and the potential increase in delays, are not applicable to the final rule. E_AIRPORT - Economic analysis for airports general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 34 We would agree with the EPA’s assumption on page 2 - 43 of the Economic Analysis that “..the ability of airports to increase fees is dependent on the nature of the particular airport and its relationship with the tenant airlin e(s). For example, airports with only one major airline are more financially vulnerable and may be less able to pass on capital costs to the airline if the airline is in financial distress. Also, secondary airports are more vulnerable than primary airport s because the services at secondary airports are more readily suspended during times of financial difficulty for the airlines.” This reinforces the point that smaller or mid - sized airports that may fall into the scope of this NPRM are especially vulnerable . According to one of our members at a non - hub airport, with approximately 300,000 enplanements per year, if the proposal is put into effect at this particular airport, they estimate $1 million for initial capital costs and an additional $500,000 - $1 mill ion, depending on glycol disposal costs, on an annual basis for operating costs. These costs could equate to an increase of enplaned passenger cost of around $2.00 per enplanement. Such an increase would likely lead to a cut in air service from the airline s serving this airport. Several other airports may be in similar situations. Therefore, we would not agree with the below statement within the EPA’s Economic Analysis: Section 2.6.2.5 Net Operating Revenues

– “The FAA reported that airports have recovered financially from the difficulties of the early 2000s (Shaffer 2007). However, they also found a direct relationship between the size of the airport (measured by passenger enplanements) and the net operating revenues of the airport. Large and medium - sized a irports consistently earn positive net revenues.” Response: As the final rule does not establish uniform requirements for collection or treatment of spent ADF at existing airports, this comment is not applicable to the final rule. EPA notes that under t he final rule, which establishes controls associated with airfield deicing discharges, only six non - hub airports are expected to incur capital costs, none of which are projected to exceed $32,000 in average annualized capital costs (2006 dollars), while on ly two non - hubs are projected to incur total average annualized costs that exceed $100,000 (2006 dollars), and only by a small amount (total average annualized costs about $106,000). None of these airports is expected to incur costs exceeding $0.40 per pas senger, or 3 percent of operating revenues. EPA also examined air traffic at the six non - hub airports and found that none of those airports is dominated by a single large carrier. EPA concludes that the cost of the rule is small relative to financial reso urces even at non - hub airports. E_AIRPORT - Economic analysis for airports general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 37 The EPA does not yet know what funding mechanisms would be available to support this proposal but assumes the full c ost would be absorbed by the airport. AIP grants and AIP funds, and PFC funding is not abundant, nor is it readily available to many. In addition, the cost of capital has been rising since the EPA ’s 2006 cost estimate (Section 5.1 National Compliance Cost s in the Economic Analysis) and increasingly more exclusionary.318 Response: EPA agrees, and in the economic analysis of the final rule is no longer using the prevailing bond rates to assess impacts of incremental option costs on affected entities. Instead, for the economic analysis, we have used the Office of Management and Budget's suggested real discount rate of 7 percent to represent the opportunity cost of the capital needed to meet the rule requirements. EPA, however, continues to believe that many of those affected will be able to obtain financing at rates lower than the 7 percent assumed real rate. E_AIRPORT - Economic analysis for airports general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 133 We would have preferred that EPA devise an ec onomic impact metric for this regulation that is more meaningful for airports and more consistent with the way that airports themselves would evaluate whether a new set of externally mandated costs would cause significant adverse economic impacts. EPA was previously on track to use some impact metrics that would be more meaningful and familiar in the field of airport finance. In an earlier memo, EPA indicated that the Agency intended to estimate the impact of the Proposed Rule’s costs on the cost - competitiv eness of airports relative to each other by assessing the impact of compliance costs on landing fees and on cost per enplaned passenger.100 As this EPA memo stated: “A major concern of some airports is that increased airport costs could make it uneconomic for airlines to operate from that airport, and the airlines would find lower cost alternatives... The percent increase in landing fees will be one measure of the rule’s impact... Airline cost per enplaned passenger (CPEP) is a measure commonly used by indu stry to determine whether an airport is competitive with other airports, and thus attractive to airlines, or if the airport is becoming too costly for airlines to use.”101 These are exactly the concerns that airports have about the compliance costs associa ted with EPA’s Proposed Rule. These compliance costs may either be absorbed by airports, passed on to the flying public (via PFCs), or passed on to the airlines serving the airports (and then perhaps be further passed on to the airlines’ customers). The ai rports significantly affected by the proposed regulation fear that any of these three alternatives will reduce their attractiveness to airlines and the public. An airport that absorbs the ELG compliance costs reduces the funds it has available to modernize , expand to meet demand, and meet additional regulatory requirements (e.g., safety, security). An airport that passes costs on to the public via PFCs makes itself less attractive by, in effect, raising the price of tickets for all flights using the airport . An airport that passes costs on to its airlines makes itself less attractive to these airlines, potentially inducing these airlines to shift flights to other airports, reduce seasonal service to the airport, or reconsider the hub status of the airport. T o cite one example of these potential adverse impacts, the management of Greater Rockford (IL) airport is very concerned that its ELG compliance costs

– if passed through as landing fees

– will seriously threaten the continuation of its already economicall y tenuous commercial air service to Chicago. If some of the Chicago flights are dropped, landing fees will need to be raised on all the remaining flights, and the existence of all commercial service to the airport will then be at risk.102 [Footnote 102: An increase in landing fees or cost per enplaned passenger can have a snowballing effect. If fees are increased and flights/passengers decline as a result, fees will need to be increased even more to hold revenues constant with decreasing flights and passeng ers, which will cause loss of more flights/passengers, and so forth.] And, as another example, Logan Airport in Boston is very concerned that the high ELG compliance costs it will face will drive further passengers and flights to nearby competitor airports in Manchester, NH, and Providence, RI. Response: EPA investigated the impact of the ELG on cost per enplaned passenger. This analysis is found in Section 5.3 (Cost per Enplaned Passenger) of the Economic Analysis for Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (EPA - 821 - R - 12 - 004 ). The incremental costs of the final rule, if passed through to airlines and their passengers is considered minimal, particularly now that the final319 rule does not set uniform aircraft deicin g discharge controls (e.g. deicing pads) at existing airports. Incremental cost per passenger of BAT is less than $0.25 per enplaned passenger at all but six in - scope airports. EPA believes that this relatively low cost per enplaned passenger supports its determination that the rule is economically achievable. Finally, although an airport’s CPEP might increase, thus raising concerns that it might lose traffic to nearby airports that are competitors, the comment ignores the fact that CPEP at those competi tor airports might also increase, thus negating the shift in relative competitiveness. Furthermore, a complete analysis of changing competitiveness would require evaluating the distribution of the probable flying public in overlapping catchment areas of a major metropolitan region. For example, the Manchester airport identified in the comment as a competitor of Logan Airport in Boston is projected to incur costs of about $0.004 per passenger, a similar magnitude as Logan Airport. Although Providence, Rhode Island’s TF Green Airport is not projected to incur costs under the promulgated rule, TF Green Airport is about a 1 hour and 10 minute drive from Logan, and a 2 hour 10 minute drive from Manchester. Based on the relatively small cost per enplaned passeng er at Boston and Manchester, and the driving distance to Providence Rhode Island, EPA judges that no significant shift in competitiveness between these three airports is likely to result from the promulgated rule. E_AIRPORT - Economic analysis for airport s general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 136 Note that this measure that we are suggesting EPA use is closely related to the cost per enplaned passenger (CPEP) measure that EPA proposed in the Agency’s previously cited 2006 memo on “R evised Draft Economic Impact Methodology” for the ELG. EPA proposed in this memo to estimate an airport’s CPEP in the baseline, before the regulation (CPEPpre), and to compare that against post - regulatory CPEP (CPEPpost). CPEPpre and CPEPpost were to be es timated as follows: CPEPpre = (Total airport operating revenues x Percent attributed to airlines)/ Enplaned passengers and CPEPpost = (Total airport operating revenues x Percent attributed to airlines) + Annualized compliance costs/ Enplaned passengers The first possibility the Agency suggested was to “calculate post - regulatory CPEP as a percent of pre - regulatory CPEP”, or [(CPEPpost) - (CPEPpre)]/(CPEPpre) Substituting into this expression the definitions of CPEPpre and CPEPpost, simplifying terms and assu ming that the regulation causes only small changes in the airport’s total operating revenues, percent attributed to airlines and number of enplaned passengers, we obtain the following: % change in CPEP due to the regulation = Annualized compliance costs/ ( Total airport operating revenues x Percent attributed to airlines) Note that the denominator, the expression within the parentheses, (Total airport operating revenues x Percent attributed to airlines) is similar in concept to the airport’s aeronautical rev enues. In effect, the first measure that EPA originally suggested for evaluating economic impacts from the ELG on airports

– the percentage change in cost per enplaned passenger – is nearly identical to the measure that we are now proposing

– the ratio bet ween annualized compliance costs and the airport’s aeronautical revenues. Response: In response to the commenter’s suggestion of using CPEP, EPA performed two analyses of the final rule that are closely related to CPEP as a sensitivity analysis to its primary analysis. EPA calculated incremental regulatory costs per enplaned passenger at each airport, and also calculated incremental cost per enplaned passenger as a percent of airport - specific baseline cost per enplaned passenger (CPEP). It performed both analyses because it was unable to obtain baseline CPEP data for all potentially affe cted airports from publicly available data sources. This analysis is found in Section 5.3 (Cost per Enplaned Passenger) of the Economic Analysis for Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (EPA 821 - R - 12 - 004).320 H owever, the key drawback with examining the percent increase in CPEP at an airport as a measure of impacts is that there is no clear threshold to determine economic achievability (as the commenters themselves admit; see comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1

– 134). This is precisely the same criticism that commenters have used against EPA’s preferred measures (same comment). When examining incremental compliance costs as: a percent of airport operating revenues, the percent increase in baseline CPEP, and as an absolute value per enplaned passenger, EPA found all three measures to be highly correlated in ranking airport impacts and all showed relatively small impacts measured as absolute values (Section 5.3,Cost per Enplaned Passenger, of the Economic Analysis for Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and the impact extrapolation memorandum in the rulemaking record). Thus, without clearly defined thresholds, examining impacts on CPEP adds little information to the analysis, with one exception. The analysis does demonstrate that the cost of the rule on a per passenger basis is relatively small (e.g., all except six in - scope airport are projected to incur cost that are less than $0.25 per passenger), which generally supports EPA conclusion that the rule is economically achievable. E_DSCR - Economic analysis – Debt - Service Coverage Ratio Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 146 Debt - Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) In applying its test where one entity owns and/ or operates more than one airport, EPA apparently aggregates operating revenues. While we have not had the opportunity to complete an in - depth study of this aspect of EPA’s analysis, this approach needs to conform to anti diversion requirements and other F ederal policies. Response: EPA aggregates revenues to employ a financial test. EPA is not requiring entities owning more than one airport to actually combine revenues, thus it is not conflicting with any Federal policies. Furthermore, in each case it is clear from the authority's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report that debt is evaluated at an aggregate level, therefore EPA evaluates these airports on the same basis as the airports evaluate themselves. E_DSCR - Economic analysis – Debt - Service Coverage Ratio Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 36 AAAE does not agree that defaulting on your contract with bondholders through a violation of the debt service coverage of 1.25X would not “significantly weaken” an airport’s financial condition. This conclusion implies that meeting contractual requirements is not essential and furthermore, the airlines and/or the investment community will simply allow these costs to be passed to them through higher rates or debt restructuring. This statement is not realistic. A default under a bond resolution sets in motion a series of actions that fundamentally undermines the trust that an airport can meet its obligations and consequently destroys confidence in its financial management. A default of the Debt - Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) would immediately reduce the market value of bonds held by investors and a series of legal actions and investor lawsuits would likely follow. Response: The DSCR test shows, in a failing situation, that if an airport did nothing to change its financial condition, it could violate debt serv ice conditions. However, airports have other options that could prevent this situation. In such cases where the test shows that debt service would exceed the 1.25 threshold, it indicates an impact because the airport does have to make some efforts to avoi d violating debt service321 conditions. This does not mean, however, that the airport would automatically default if it incurred the costs of the rule. Finally, this addresses the proposed rule; the economic evaluation of the final rule projected that no airp orts would incur costs that might cause it to violate its debt service coverage ratio. E_DSCR - Economic analysis – Debt - Service Coverage Ratio Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 137 We have several objections to EPA’s approach for evaluating the impact on an airport’s debt service coverage ratio, the Agency’s second economic impact measure Although use of this measure is appropriate insofar as most airports are required to track debt service coverage ratio as a key measure of airport financial health, it is an inappropriate choice as one of only two key measures for this regulation because, as we discuss elsewhere in these comments, most airports will not use GARBs or other forms of de bt to finance deicing compliance capital investments. EPA’s procedure for calculating the change in an airport’s debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) is acceptable in broad outline. However, we have the following concerns: The interest rate that airports wi ll actually pay on any GARBs issued in the 2013

– 2018 time frame for ELG compliance will likely be much higher than the avg of 2.9% real that EPA assumes in the Economic Analysis. See our comments on this elsewhere also. • EPA should perform the DSCR anal ysis on a nominal rather than a real basis, using likely nominal interest rates as of the 2013

– 2018 time period rather than real rates as of this period. EPA should consider performing the analysis on a real basis as we suspect EPA intends. Because the i nterest an airport will actually pay on any additional indebtedness incurred for ELG compliance (the first half of the DSCR calculation) will be paid in nominal, inflating dollar terms and the nominal interest rate that will drive these payments will inclu de a substantial premium representing inflation. On the other hand, the second half of the DSCR calculation involves an airport’s net revenues, and these are not likely to increase over time with the general rate of inflation (as measured by EPA via the CP I). • For those airports that did not issue GARBs during EPA’s 2003

– 2005 ELG survey period, EPA assumed that the interest rate they would have paid on GARBs would have been equal to the average interest rate paid by airports that did issue GARBs during t his period and reported this rate in their survey response. This assumption is inappropriate. It is generally smaller airports that would not have issued a GARB during this period. Assigning them the same (low) interest rate as the average across the gener ally larger, financially healthier airports that did issue GARBs then (large airports issue GARBs frequently, small airports issue them rarely) is inappropriate. Note the data EPA provides in the Economic Analysis to the effect that larger airports are gen erally financially healthier than smaller airports. Response: When bonds are issued, the interest rate payable in each future time period is specified; this interest rate is at least partly based on expected inflation. Future interest rates on bond issu es examined by EPA do not reflect increasing real rates over time. However, in the analysis for the final rule, EPA no longer uses prevailing bond rates to assess impacts of incremental option costs on affected entities. Instead, it uses the Office of Man agement and Budget's (OMB's) suggested real discount rate of 7 percent to represent the opportunity cost of the capital needed to meet the rule requirements. OMB's guidance indicates that regulatory agencies should strive to perform all analyses in real te rms, which EPA has done. EPA, however, continues to believe that many of those affected will be able to obtain financing at rates lower than the 7 percent assumed real rate. In addition, EPA reviewed projected debt incurred by smaller, financially vuln erable airports under the promulgated option. Of 116 small and non - hubs in - scope of the rule, only 13 are projected to incur capital costs, and none of these 13 airports is projected to incur average annualized capital costs in excess of $32,000 (2006 dol lars). Thus, the actual debt incurred by smaller airports is relatively small.32 2 E_FINANCE - Financing used for analysis Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 35 We request that the sections of the Economic Analysis concerning General Airport Rev enue Bonds (GARB) receive further consideration: Section 3.1.1 Financing Methods for Capital Expenditures “EPA expects that significant capital expenditures are likely to be financed using tax - exempt General Airport Revenue Bonds (GARB).” Due to the afore mentioned downward trend in passenger air traffic, many large and medium hub airports have weakened balance sheets, therefore creating an obstacle when trying to underwrite additional debt. If additional debt can be issued, the cost of this debt will likel y be higher than 5.25% interest rate used in the analysis for many airports. This conclusion is based on the weakened financial condition and the significant downgrade in the credit rating of bond insurance companies who insured airport debt. Prior to the recession, airport debt would obtain an AAA rating after insurance and currently the bond insurance industry can offer a lower range of AA to BB. This results in higher costs to issue debt due to the increased risk profile. Section 3.1.1 Financing Methods for Capital Expenditures “The primary advantage of using GARB over alternative sources of finance is that because they are a form of municipal bond, income to bond holders is tax exempt. This has been estimated to result in effective interest rates two per centage points lower than alternative non - tax exempt capital sources to bond (CBO 1999). Although airports ostensibly do not pay interest if capital projects can be funded through grants instead of issuing bonds, airports do incur an opportunity cost: usin g an AIP grant to finance deicing - related capital expenditures means the AIP grant cannot be used for funding other capital programs. Thus, an airport would probably have to fund the other project using GARB or some other interest bearing source, or would have to postpone the project. In either case, the airport incurs an opportunity cost, which is best represented by the interest rate associated with issuing bonds.” Given the challenge to fund projects through GARBs in the current economic state, the cost of funding at many airports is represented by the opportunity costs resulting from the utilization of AIP Grants, PFCs, or internally generated funds. Alternative funding sources to GARBs that are generally available to airports are limited and are often o vercommitted to other projects. Use of these funds for this proposal comes at the price of deferring and/or canceling other projects. These projects are likely focused on public safety, expanding the capacity, improving facilities, or generating additional airport revenue. While it is difficult to quantify the rate of return on these deferred and cancelled projects, the cost is real and significant depending on each airport’s circumstances. The conclusion that “opportunity costs” are best represented by the interest rate associated with issuing bonds is unsupported and does not reflect the cascading costs effect associated with using alternative funding. Response: In the economic analysis of the final rule, EPA did not assume that airports will use GARBs to finance capital expenditures to meet the requirements of this effluent guideline, nor did EPA use the prevailing bond rates to assess impacts of incremental option costs on affected entities. Instead, EPA used the Office of Management and Budget's suggest ed real discount rate of 7 percent (OMB Circular A - 94) to represent the opportunity cost of the capital needed to meet the rule requirements. OMB’s recommended 7 percent real discount rate represents the marginal pretax rate of return on average private se ctor investment and thus represents the opportunity cost of capital for the private sector. EPA believes the airport sector has a lower opportunity cost of capital because of generally lower risk and the possibility of using tax exempt GARBs; these are ma jor reasons why bond rates have been significantly below 7 percent over the last two decades. EPA accepts industry’s recommendation to use OMB’s 7 percent real rate because of considerable uncertainty in future rates resulting from current economic condit ions and the difficulty of forecasting such rates. As explained in the following paragraph, EPA believes this rate is higher than is likely to be incurred by airports in the future and therefore results in a conservative analysis. EPA, however, continues to believe that many of those affected, in reality, will be able to obtain financing at rates lower than the 7 percent assumed real rate. Interest rates over the last 10 to 20 years have generally been far below a real 7 percent. Federal Reserve Bank data shows that the real interest rate on323 20 year T - bills has averaged 2.4 percent over the last 10 years and 3.1 percent over the last 17 years; the maximum real rate over that period was 4.9 percent in 1994. State and local bonds as measured by the Bond Buye r General Obligation 20 - Bond Municipal Bond Index averaged a real rate of 2.3 percent over 10 years and 2.7 percent over the last 20 years; a real 7 percent rate was last exceeded in 1983. The real yield on Moody’s AAA corporate bonds averaged 3.3 percent over the last 10 years and 4.0 percent over the last 20 years; it has not exceeded 7 percent since 1986. Real yield on Moody’s BAA corporate bonds averaged 4.5 percent over the last 10 years and 5.0 percent over the last 20 years; although it exceeded 7 pe rcent in 2009, prior to that it had not exceeded 7 percent since 1986. Corporate bonds require higher yields than GARBs since they are not tax exempt. The Agency therefore concludes using a 7 percent real rate is higher than the rate airports might pay in the foreseeable future, even if airport rates exceed those used in the analysis of the proposed rule. Finally, the Agency notes that the commenter cites a nominal rate of 5.25 percent. After accounting for average inflation of 2.6 percent over the last 10 years and 2.8 percent over the last 20 years, the 7 percent real rate is approximately equivalent to a nominal rate of 9.6 percent to 9.8 percent, which is significantly higher than the nominal 5.25 percent rate specified in this comment. It is difficult to directly estimate projected rates of returns on many airport projects focused on public safety and improving facilities, and thus the forgone opportunity should an airport choose to delay such a project. In such a case, it is appropriate to use a mark et interest rate to reflect the opportunity cost of capital to choose between alternative projects. EPA believes that using OMB’s recommended 7 percent real rate for the private sector, a rate that is higher than airports have typically paid to access cap ital markets over the previous two decades, adequately addresses industry’s concern that EPA underestimated the opportunity cost of capital for deicing related infrastructure in its economic analysis. E_FINANCE - Financing used for analysis Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 107 The Economic Analysis notes “EPA assumes airports will primarily finance costs incurred in complying with the effluent guidelines through increased landing fees.”255 As the document correctly states, even though this represents a long - run trend, in the short - run airports might face significant resistance to increase costs, which will translate to higher landing fees, especially when the airlines are in financial distress. “As the price of oil continues to rise, it is not clear how much this financial stress on airlines has eased. Thus, while costs might conceptually be passed through, it is not clear how much scope is available for cost pass - through at this point in time.”256 In the case of the Port Authority, the flig ht fee agreements guarantee cost recovery for airport operations, maintenance and investment. These agreements are based on a ratio of costs to landing or takeoff weights. Decreased passenger traffic generally means fewer planes flying; this reduces the to tal weights and results in upward pressures on the unit costs and a greater cost per flight to the airlines. With increased costs, airlines have been increasingly reluctant to support airport investments funded through flight fees when the investments do n ot show a direct operational benefit to them. In addition, airlines have increased their scrutiny on initiatives related to capacity enhancement, Transportation Security Administration - mandated security projects, and operational investments. This financial pressure from the airlines, coupled with constraints on the Port Authority capital capacity, has forced the agency to maximize use of other funding sources, such as dwindling AIP funds, PFC and other federal grants. At this time the Port Authority’s capit al capacity is fully committed through 2016, and PFC and AIP funds have already been allocated for aeronautical projects at the airports that are either critical to state - of - good - repair or delay reduction. If this rule were to be finalized by EPA, the Port Authority would have to defer critical state - of - good - repair projects257 to undertake the investments required under the Proposed Rule. More significantly, airlines have already expressed very serious concerns about any and all proposed increases to the fl ight fee, and would be reluctant to agree to pay for capital investments that would not provide operational savings or increase revenue, but would actually increase costs and airport delays. [FOOTNOTE: 257 State of Good Repair Projects are those that addre ss identified field conditions and/or asset life - cycle driven recommendations. The Engineering324 Department has identified the projects necessary to maintain critical structural integrity and operational capability of facilities so that the Port Authority’s business objectives can be achieved.] Response: EPA acknowledges that some airports might not be able to pass through costs of the rule to airlines in the form of landing fees. The Agency did assess a zero cost pass - through scenario and has determined that the final rule is economically achievable and is not a barrier to entry for new sources. Additionally, in the economic analysis of the final rule, EPA is no longer using the prevailing bond rates to assess impacts of incremental option costs on affect ed entities and is using the Office of Management and Budget's suggested real discount rate of 7 percent to represent the opportunity cost of the capital needed to meet the rule requirements. Because EPA shows the rule to be economically achievable even if airports must obtain higher interest rate financing to attract capital, any lower rate financing currently available to airports can continue to be used, thus avoiding the delay or reduction of currently planned capital projects. However, as explained fur ther in the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1

– 35, EPA believes that many affected airports will be able to obtain financing at rates lower than the 7 percent assumed real rate. With regard to the specific financial circumstances of the Port Authority, the proposed regulation projected significant capital expenditures at three of the four in - scope airports owned by the Authority. However, under the final rule, none of the Authority’s four in - scope airports are projected to incur any capital c osts, and thus the Authority should not have to incur further debt or defer any planned investment. EPA expects that one airport owned by the Authority, Stewart International, will incur operating costs associated with product substitution under the final rule, but these costs are substantially less than 1 percent of that airport’s revenues. In light of these findings and EPA’s economic analysis of the industry as a whole, we have concluded that the final rule is economically achievable. E_FINANCE - Fin ancing used for analysis Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 109 EPA’s analysis does not reflect the impact of the recent credit crisis on the ability to issue bonds and secure lower rates. In 2008 the sub - prime mortgage developments and resultant credit crisis caused serious problems for airports and other municipal borrowers to access credit. During the months following September 2008, despite best attempts, no airport bonds subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (“AMT”) were purchased by investo rs in the primary market. This includes bonds issued by airports or airport authorities such as the Port Authority, with favorable credit ratings. According to J.P. Morgan, the issuance of airport debt fell by nearly 30 percent in 2009 as airports across t he country resized their capital plans, due to lower passenger activity levels and limited refunding opportunities due to higher credit spreads.260 EPA has failed to consider this economic reality in the Proposed Rule. In addition, EPA falsely presumes tha t bond issues can be insured against default, and investors would be willing to accept a lower interest rate on such bond issue.261 Under this scenario, the airport would borrow at lower cost if its bonds can be insured. However, after the credit crisis, m ost bond insurance firms were downgraded to levels where their policies were virtually worthless. As a result, it has become more challenging to finance new projects, and many existing airport projects are threatened due to lack of ongoing financing. As J. P. Morgan’s referenced year - end update states, the composition of airport debt issuance varied sharply. Insured debt comprised 82 percent of the market in 2007, but decreased to just 27 percent in 2009 and was provided by a very limited number of guarantor s, reflecting the weakened condition of financial guaranty providers.262 Furthermore, EPA erroneously suggests the primary advantage of using General Airport Revenue Bonds (“GARB”) over alternative sources of finance is that the income to bond holders is t ax exempt because GARBs are a form of municipal bond. The tax - exempt status has been estimated to result in effective interest rates two percentage points lower than alternative325 non - tax exempt capital sources to bond issuers.263 However, the analysis does not take into account that the market for airport bonds is more challenging because since 1986, the majority of bonds issued by airports are classified as Private Activity Bonds (“PABs”), interest payments on which are subject to the AMT. This results in i nvestors demanding an interest rate premium to compensate for the additional tax liability or for the potential of additional tax liability. Also, PABs, unlike most tax - exempt bonds issued for governmental purposes, cannot be advance refunded to take advan tage of lower rates in the future. As a result of these considerations, interest rates are likely to be higher that those assumed by EPA in the analysis, which does not take into account any of the significant changes in the credit market for the air trans portation industry. With an increasing number of taxpayers becoming subject to the AMT, the number of investors willing to directly purchase AMT airport bonds decreases significantly. Further, according to ACI - NA, by October 2008 the demand for AMT bonds dramatically decreased with investors demanding a premium of 150 basis points or more, when bonds could be sold. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”) included a provision that exempted airport PABs from the AMT for the calendar years 2009 an d 2010 and allowed debt issued from 2003 - 2008 to be refinanced into non - AMT debt during this same time period. However, this provision is temporary and, starting in 2011, airport bonds will no longer be exempt from the AMT. EPA has failed to take these add itional critical financial issues into consideration in its promulgation of the Proposed Rule. The analysis does not reflect the consolidated nature of the Port Authority. To fund the capital expenditures required to comply with the Proposed Rule, EPA expe cts that airports will issue tax - exempt, fixed coupon rate serial GARB.264 To issue these bonds, an airport needs to demonstrate that it has a revenue stream to support payment of interest and principal. The analysis assumes that the revenue stream would be in the form of increased rates and charges.265 However, due to its consolidated nature, the Port Authority cannot issue this type of revenue bond. The Port Authority has a pooled revenue structure, which is pledged to the payment of principal, and inter est on Consolidated Bonds, which are the debt instrument used to finance the Port Authority’s capital program. As part of its stand - alone structure, the Port Authority is financially selfsustaining and raises the funds it needs to acquire, construct or im prove its facilities generally on the basis of its own credit. When the Port Authority was created, the States of New York and New Jersey provided the agency with the power to establish charges for the use of its facilities and to borrow money through its bonds or other obligations. However, the Port Authority has no power to levy taxes or assessments and its obligations are neither obligations of the two states nor guaranteed by the states. In large part, the revenues of the Port Authority are generated fr om the tolls, fares, landing and dockage fees, rentals and other types of charges paid by the users at certain of its varied transportation facilities, which are not limited to airports. The Port Authority’s pooled revenue structure is key to its ability t o provide for the agency’s long - term capital program. The primary debt instrument used by the Port Authority is the Consolidated Bond, which represents direct and general obligations of the Port Authority. The full faith and credit of the Port Authority is pledged to the payment of principal and interest on Consolidated Bonds and the Port Authority may only issue these bonds for purposes for which it is authorized by law. All Consolidated Bonds are equally and ratably secured by a pledge of the net revenues of all existing Port Authority facilities. This includes Port Authority facilities other than airports (e.g., commuter rail) that do not generate positive net revenue. To issue additional debt to finance a new project, the agency must pass bonds tests bas ed on its consolidated financial statements. Although airlines would pay for the required investments in the form of higher flight fees, these additional revenues would become part of the consolidated revenue pledge to the Consolidated Bonds, and might not be sufficient to generate additional capital capacity to pay for these projects (because part of the consolidated revenue would be used to pay for other capital projects at the airports, or the higher flight fees would not be sufficient to cover the cost of the projects). This could be the case in part due to the current arrangement with the Cities of New York and Newark for the lease of the airports. The Port Authority operates JFK and LGA under a lease agreement with the City of New York, and EWR under a lease agreement with the City of Newark. Under the agreements, the Port Authority is required to pay in annual rentals the greater of the minimum annual rental or 8 percent of the Port Authority’s gross revenues from JFK and LGA to the City of New York, a nd the greater of the minimum annual rental or 8 percent of the Port Authority’s gross revenues from326 EWR to the City of Newark. As a result, even if the airlines were to pay for the required capital investments to comply with the Proposed Rule including th e Port Authority bond coverage requirement, the additional revenues would not be sufficient to cover the costs of the projects and meet even the lower bond coverage ratio (1.25 vs. 1.3 coverage ratio for Port Authority) assumed in the EPA’s analysis.266 Th e Port Authority maintains that EPA would need to consider such issues completely and adequately before finalizing the Proposed Rule. [FOOTNOTE: 260 J.P . Morgan Year - End Airport Sector Update. 2009 Issuance Review and 2010 Market Outlook, January 2010.] Response: In the economic analysis of the final rule, EPA is no longer using the prevailing bond rates to assess impacts of incremental option costs on affected entities and is using the Office of Management and Budget's suggested real discount rate of 7 p ercent to represent the opportunity cost of the capital needed to meet the rule requirements. A rate this high would be highly attractive to investors in the current economic climate. Therefore, EPA believes that, under this scenario, the issues associated with diverted financing would not emerge; meanwhile, the Agency continues to show the final rule to be economically achievable and not a barrier to entry using the 7 percent real rate. However, as explained further in the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 200 4 - 0038 - 1231.1

– 35, EPA believes that many of those affected, in reality, will be able to obtain financing at rates lower than the 7 percent assumed real rate. Also, EPA acknowledges that the Port Authority is required to have a 1.3 coverage ratio and did use this coverage ratio to assess impacts to the Port Authority, which had no effect on the results of the? analysis. Based on a review of the Authority’s financial statements, EPA performed the DSCR at level of the entire Port Authority, believing that is how the Authority would perform the analysis as well (an assumption confirmed by this comment). EPA performed the DSCR for the proposed rule alternately assuming 100 percent cost pass through and zero percent cost pass through. The latter assumption demon strates that the Authority can incur additional capital spending with no increase in consolidated revenues streams without endangering the financial viability of the Authority or requiring reductions in current capital expenditures either at the Authority’ s airports or its other facilities. Finally, under the promulgated option, the Port Authority is not expected to incur any capital costs at any of the four airports owned by the Authority, and is only expected to incur annual operating and maintenance cost s of approximately $60,000 per year at one of the four airports. E_FINANCE - Financing used for analysis Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 126 EPA’s Financial Analysis Needs Revision EPA assumes that all airports will use tax - exempt General A irport Revenue Bonds (GARBs) to finance the capital costs of complying with the rule. The necessary capital investments will include items like improvements in an airport’s drainage, runoff collection and storage infrastructure, constructing deicing pads ( at a few large airports), purchase of glycol recovery vehicles and construction of infrastructure to facilitate their efficient use, and installation of plants to treat the collected runoff. Capital costs for compliance with the regulation will typically r ange up to several million dollars for airports facing the requirement to collect and treat 20 percent of available ADF, and several hundred million dollars or more at each of the seven large - or medium - hub airports that EPA projects as facing the 60 perce nt collection requirement and needing to construct dedicated deicing pads and associated supporting infrastructure. Based on data provided by airports for the years 2003 to 2005, EPA projects that the GARBs assumed to finance these future capital investmen ts will have an average real interest rate of 2.89%/yr (5.26%/yr nominal reduced by about 2.3%/yr to take out the impact of inflation). We believe that this interest rate of 2.89%/year is much too low as an estimate of the real cost of the capital that air ports will invest for compliance with the ELG.84 [Footnote 84: Note that EPA’s aim in the Economic Analysis should be to estimate the costs and impacts of the proposed regulation at the future time when compliance with the regulation will occur. As such, E PA should endeavor to assume as327 baseline conditions for the analysis (e.g., in making assumptions regarding the economic health of the regulated industry, interest rates, etc.) whatever conditions are judged most likely to prevail during the years from 201 3

– 2018 or so when construction of infrastructure to achieve compliance will occur. EPA should not assume blindly that whatever conditions prevailed in 2003

– 2005 when the Agency’s survey data were gathered will also prevail during the future period that should be the real focus of interest in the analysis. Survey data that EPA has obtained pertaining to conditions in 2003

– 2005 may be relevant in suggesting something about what conditions will be like in 2013

– 2018, but the required focus on this futur e period should prompt the Agency to consider ways in which the future period is likely to be different from 2003

– 2005, from the present, or from any other period from which data may be obtained. With respect to GARB interest rates during the 2013

– 2018 period that the analysis should address, for example, the Agency should consider whether interest rates during this future period are likely to be higher or lower than they were in 2003

– 2005, and whether they are likely to be higher or lower than they h ave been most recently. We submit that the best approach for projecting what interest rates may be during the future compliance period for the proposed ELG is probably to collect data on interest rates recently (e.g., 2008 and 2009) and then to judge (perh aps based on government projections or on the consensus of experts) how rates are likely to move from this level in the future.] We believe that: • Most of the capital investments made for compliance with the ELG will not derive from GARBs. Instead, most a irports will pay for the compliance capital investments by using AIP grants, PFCs, charges and fees, accumulated operating surplus, and savings from deferral of other planned capital investments; • The cost of the funds obtained from these more likely sour ces is represented by their opportunity costs

– the rate of return that an airport would have earned had this capital not been diverted to ELG compliance investments from its original intended use; To the extent that some airports do issue GARBs to finance the ELG compliance capital investments (e.g., perhaps some of the large airports facing capital costs in the range of $50 to $100 million or more for deicing pads and treatment facilities), they will likely have real interest rates substantially exceeding 2.89%/year. We do not have a good estimate for the opportunity costs of financing compliance investments by non - GARB means, nor can we project what GARB rates will be during the compliance period for those few airports that will likely use them (we are co nfident only that GARB rates will likely be significantly higher than the 2.9% real figure that EPA assumes). Given this uncertainty, we suggest that EPA assume a real interest rate of 7%/year as the cost of financing compliance capital investments, as the Agency has done frequently for other ELGs that affect private sector entities. The remainder of this section provides further detail on these points. Response: In the economic analysis of the final rule, EPA is no longer using the prevailing bond rates t o assess impacts of incremental option costs on affected entities and is using the Office of Management and Budget's suggested real discount rate of 7 percent to represent the opportunity cost of the capital needed to meet the rule requirements. Therefore EPA no longer assumes that airports must be able to issue GARBs to achieve the low discount rate used in the analysis of the proposed rule. As explained further in the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1

– 35, EPA believes that many of those aff ected will be able to obtain financing at rates lower than the 7 percent assumed real rate. Additionally, EPA has updated industry data, and the analysis incorporate, to the extent possible, knowledge of the industry in 2007 through 2009, in addition to th e survey years of 2004 to 2006. EPA also notes that there are no uniform requirements for existing airports to collect and treat aircraft deicing fluid under the final rule, and average annualized capital costs of the final rule are not expected to exceed $50,000 for any large in - scope airports. Because projected capital compliance costs are significantly smaller than in the proposed rule, EPA believes airports are more likely to be able to finance the necessary investment using “AIP grants, PFCs, charges a nd fees, accumulated operating surplus and savings from deferral of other planned capital investments,” as described in comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1

– 129, without needing to significantly access capital markets. As explained in its response to comm ent EPA - HQ - OW 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1

– 35, the opportunity cost of such means of financing the investment is adequately reflected in the use of OMB’s recommended 7 percent real discount rate.328 E_FINANCE - Financing used for analysis Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 127 Most Airports Are Unlikely to Use GARBs for Their ELG Compliance Investments. EPA projects that the 60 airports the Agency believes will need improvements in order to meet the proposed 20 percent collection and treatment requirement will incur capital costs totaling $168.9 million.85 [Footnote 85: In Table VIII - 1 of the Preamble, EPA indicates that Option 1 is projected to entail $299.5 million in present value capital costs, and 67 airports will incur costs. The seven airports that are projected to incur costs for deicing pads account for an estimated $130.6 million of the Option 1 capital costs (calculated from EPA’s Airport Deicing Costing Database, “Option Costs Combined Output Table”) thus leaving $168.9 million in capital costs for the 60 airports that will incur costs to meet the 20% requirement but not the 60% requirement.] The great majority of these airports are small hubs and non - hubs. By EPA’s estimate their average capital cost for ELG compliance will be approximately $2. 8 million each. EPA projects that the 7 airports the Agency believes will need improvements in order to meet the proposed 60 percent collection and treatment requirement will incur capital costs totaling $532.8 million.86 [Footnote 86: Table VIII - 1 indicat es that all affected airports will incur a present value capital cost of $701.7 million. All of the incremental capital cost for Option 3 relative to Option 1 -- $402.2 million -- is incurred by the set of seven airports projected as needing to install dei cing pads and treatment. Adding the capital costs of Option 1 for these seven airports ($130.6 million) to the incremental costs of Option 3 relative to Option 1 ($402.2 million) gives the total present value capital cost of $532.8 million for these seven airports.] Six of these airports are large hubs (ORD, EWR, IAD, BOS, JFK, LGA) and one is a medium hub (CLE). By EPA’s estimate the average capital cost for ELG compliance for this set of airports will be approximately $76 million each. Frasca and Associat es, LLC tracks airport bond issuances. They report 29 airport bond issuances during 2009 (through 12/7/09) totaling $6.05 billion. The smallest issue was $16 million (Gallatin MT Airport Authority, for BZN, a non - hub airport), the second - smallest was $36 m illion (Metropolitan Nashville Airport, BNA, a medium hub), and the third - smallest was $45.7 million (City of Philadelphia, for PHL, a large hub). It is clear, assuming that this most recent year is typical, that GARBs are highly unlikely to be used for c apital investments as low as $2.8 million, the average size capital investment that EPA estimates for airports needing to meet the proposed 20 percent collection/treatment standard. In all, in 2009 there was one bond issue by a non - hub airport (for BZN), t hree for small hub airports (SBA, LGB, TUL), seven for medium hub airports, and 18 for large hub airports. This results in the following profile of bond issuance by airport hub size for 2009: [See submittal for Table 12. Bond Issuance by Airport Hub Size] This information suggests that large hub airports frequently issue GARBs. In the most recent year, there were about 3 GARBs issued for every 5 large hub airports, and one might conclude that most large hub airports would likely issue GARBs every several ye ars.87 [Footnote 87: Barring unusual circumstances, such as substantial deterioration in an airport’s credit worthiness or reaching an airport’s limit on total indebtedness.] It is thus certainly possible that large hub airports could issue GARBs to financ e large capital investments for deicing compliance (e.g., $50 - $100 million or more as might be needed to meet the proposed 60 percent capture and treatment requirements), and it is also likely possible for large hubs to finance smaller compliance capital investments for a year or two by other means, and then to include these capital costs in a larger planned GARB issue that covers multiple capital investment projects. Response: In the economic analysis of the final rule, EPA is no longer using the prevailing bond rates to assess impacts of incremental option costs on affected entities and is using the Office of Management and Budget's suggested real discount rate of 7 percent to represent the opportunity cost of the capital needed to meet the rule requirements. Therefore EPA no longer assumes that airports must be able to issue GARBs to achieve the low discount rate used in the analysis of the proposed rule. However, as explained329 further in the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1

– 35, EPA believes that many of those affected will be able to obtain financing at rates lower than the 7 percent assumed rate. EPA also notes that there are no uniform requirements for existing airports to collect and treat aircraft deicing fluid under final rule, which substantially reduces the estimated capital costs of compliance associated with this rule at the airports mentioned in the comments. Finally, although this is a moot point becaus e the promulgated option no longer requires significant capital expenditure, EPA reviewed airport bond prospectuses that were available online. This review showed that airports frequently bundle together smaller projects into a single bond issue, as also i ndicated by the commenter in the final sentence of this comment. Thus EPA concludes the comment that airports would not use GARBs to cover deicing capital costs of the magnitude estimated for the proposed rule does not appear to be generally applicable. E_FINANCE - Financing used for analysis Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 128 At the other end of the spectrum, most non - hubs and small hub airports rarely, if ever, issue GARBs. The data for 2009, above, suggests that an average small hub airp ort might issue a revenue bond only once every 25 years or so, or even less often. Non - hubs virtually never issue GARBs. Response: In the economic analysis of the final rule, EPA is no longer using the prevailing bond rates to assess impacts of incrementa l option costs on affected entities and is using the Office of Management and Budget's suggested real discount rate of 7 percent to represent the opportunity cost of the capital needed to meet the rule requirements. Therefore, EPA no longer assumes that ai rports must issue GARBS to achieve the discount rates used in the analysis of the proposed rule. However, as explained further the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1

– 35, EPA believes that many of those affected will be able to obtain financin g at rates lower than the 7 percent assumed real rate. In addition, EPA reviewed projected debt incurred by smaller, financially vulnerable airports under the promulgated option. Of 116 small and non - hubs in - scope of the rule, only 13 are projected to inc ur capital costs, and none of the 13 is projected to incur average annualized capital costs in excess of $32,000 (2006 dollars). As explained in more detail in its response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1

– 126, EPA believes that because projected c apital costs are significantly smaller under the final rule than the proposed rule, airports will be much less likely to access bond markets than they would have been under the proposed rule. E_FINANCE - Financing used for analysis Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 129 Further information suggests that airports are less likely to use GARBs to finance capital investments for deicing compliance specifically than they are to use GARBs to finance capital investments generally. In general, AIP gr ants are limited to construction or improvements relating to aircraft operations, with commercial revenue - producing purposes (e.g., parking, concessions) not eligible. PFCs use is also limited to non - revenue producing projects. Capital investments relating to aircraft deicing are likely eligible projects for both AIP grants and PFCs. In total, some 21% of all airport capital needs over the period 2009 through 2013 are projected to be for land - side projects that are generally ineligible for AIP grants or PFC funding.88 [Footnote 88: ACI - NA. Airport Capital Development Costs, 2009

– 2013. February, 2009.] If this 21% of all capital needs cannot be financed at all by use of AIP grants or PFCs, then these land - side projects must be financed nearly exclusively by GARBs. Assuming for the purposes of an example that large and medium - hub airports obtain an average of roughly 40 percent of their total capital needs from GARBs (see the table above) and that 21% of all capital needs are land - side, then most GARB330 proceed s will be used for land - side projects (21/40 = 52.5% of total GARB proceeds), leaving a lesser share of the GARB proceeds (the remaining 19/40 = 47.5%) available for terminal and air - side projects. Terminal and air - side projects, including those relating t o deicing compliance, will be financed even more predominantly by grants and PFCs than is the case for all airport capital investments. In our example, GARBs will account for only 24 percent of all terminal and air - side capital spending, including deicing

– related projects, while they will account for nearly 100 percent of all land - side capital spending and 40 percent of total capital spending.89 [Footnote 89: In this simple example, GARBs account for 40% of total large and medium hub airport capital spendin g. 21% of total capital needs are for land - side projects, and we assume that these needs will be met exclusively with GARBs. This leaves 19 percentage points worth of GARBs (40% less the 21% to be spent on land - side projects) to contribute toward the 79 pe rcentage points worth of air - side and terminal needs, resulting in a GARB contribution equal to 24% of the capital available to meet air - side and terminal needs (19/79 = 24%). In other words, in this hypothetical but perhaps not - too - far - from - the - truth exa mple for large and medium hub airports, GARBs will contribute only 24% of the total capital that will be available for the general category of projects (air side plus terminal) that includes deicing compliance facilities.] Based on this example, even for l arge and medium hub airports, GARBs seem likely to account for a relatively small share of all airport capital spending for the categories of projects within which deicing compliance is included. It seems clear to us that GARBs will be used minimally to fu nd deicing capital investments at non - hub and small hub airports. It further seems likely that GARBs will finance well less than half of deicing capital investments at medium hubs, and probably slightly less than half of all deicing compliance capital inve stments at large hub airports. EPA should not assume that GARBs will be used to finance all compliance capital investments at all sizes of airports. Most of the capital investments made for compliance with the ELG will not derive from GARBs. Instead, most airports will pay for the compliance capital investments by using AIP grants, PFCs, charges and fees, accumulated operating surplus and savings from deferral of other planned capital investments. Response: In the economic analysis of the final rule, EPA i s no longer using the prevailing bond rates to assess impacts of incremental option costs on affected entities and is using the Office of Management and Budget's suggested real discount rate of 7 percent to represent the opportunity cost of the capital nee ded to meet the rule requirements. Thus, EPA no longer assumes airports will need to issue GARBS to achieve the low discount rate assumed in the analysis of the proposed rule. However, as explained further in the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 123 1.1

– 35, EPA believes that many of those affected will be able to obtain financing at rates lower than the 7 percent assumed rate. E_FINANCE - Financing used for analysis Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 131 To the Extent that Some Airports Do Issue Garbs to Finance Their ELG Compliance Capital Investments, These Garbs Will Likely Have Real Interest Rates Substantially Exceeding EPA’s Assumed Rate of 2.89%/Year. Perhaps some of the large airports facing capita l costs from the ELG in the range of $50 to $100 million or more for deicing pads and treatment facilities will choose to issue GARBs for some or all of these capital needs. We expect that whatever GARBs are eventually used will bear interest rates signifi cantly higher than the Agency’s assumed average of 2.89 percent real per year. We believe this for several reasons: • The nominal coupon rate for municipal bonds (including airport bonds) was appreciably lower during EPA’s survey period of 2003

– 2005 (the period over which the Agency’s GARB rate was estimated) than rates in recent years (2008 and 2009) and also lower than rates are likely to be in 2013

– 2018 (the period during which investments for compliance with the ELG are likely to be made, and the pe riod for which EPA should be estimating likely interest rates). Using the Daily Bond Buyer’s index of 25 revenue bonds as an indicator of trends in tax exempt revenue bond interest rates, average rates were331 5.07 percent for 2003

– 2005 and 4.96 percent for 2005 alone.90 91 [Footnote 90: See http://www.bondbuyer.com/marketstatistics/search_bbi.html?details=true for values for this index through 2009. Footnote 91: EPA estimated the assumed average nominal GARB rate of 5.26 percent for airport bonds specifical ly by averaging the survey responses obtained in 2006 from airports regarding the interest rate on the most recent GARB they had issued. We expect that such responses would thus pertain mostly to bonds issued in 2005, and less so to bonds issued in 2004 or 2003. (Airports that had not issued GARBs during this period were apparently assigned the average interest rate that was reported by airports that had issued GARBs during this period. EPA thus evidently assigned to all the smaller airports that had not is sued GARBs an interest rate derived as the average across the mostly larger airports that had issued GARBs. This approach is inappropriate given the substantial evidence that EPA cites regarding the much greater credit - worthiness of large airports relative to small ones.) EPA’s 5.26% estimate thus pertains largely to bond market conditions in 2005, and we thus focus primarily on comparing the Bond Buyer index values in 2005 (the time period that EPA likely accessed for the bulk of the Agency’s GARB rate dat a) against the index values in 2008/2009.] In contrast, nominal rates for this index were higher for 2008/2009 at 5.39%, and will likely be significantly higher still in the future.92 [Footnote 92: Most reputable forecasters expect that the large projecte d Federal budget deficits will result in U.S. interest rates that are significantly higher in the future than they are now. The Congressional Budget Office’s most recent official projections (August, 2009), for example, are that the interest rate for the t en - year Treasury note will increase from 3.3% in 2009 to 4.1% in 2010 to 4.8% in 2012

– 2013 and to 5.5% in 2014

– 2019. See http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10521/econproj.pdf.] • The inflation rate was higher in EPA’s survey period of 2003

– 2005 than rates in recent years. Hence EPA’s adjustment to remove the impact of inflation (estimated via the Consumer Price Index) from nominal bond rates made estimated real interest rates in 2003

– 2005 even lower relative to real 2008/2009 rates than the compari son between nominal rates in 2003

– 2005 and nominal rates in 2008/2009 would suggest. The average December - to - December increase in the CPI over 2003 to 2005 was 2.87 percent; for 2005 alone the CPI increase was 3.4%, and for 2008 and 2009 the average inc rease was 1.4%.93 [Footnote 93: See http://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables.htm.] Applying this inflation adjustment to the nominal interest rate for the Bond Buyer’s revenue bond index gives real rates for the revenue bond index of 2.20% for 2003

– 2005, 1.56% for 2005 alone, and 3.99% for 2008/2009.94 [Footnote 94: These estimated real interest rates are calculated, using EPA’s procedures, as follows. The 2003

– 2005 nominal average interest rate for the revenue bond index was 5.07%. Subtract the annual average rat e of increase in the CPI over this period (2.87%) to obtain a real interest rate of 2.20%. The 2005 nominal average interest rate for the revenue bond index was 4.96%. Subtract the annual average rate of increase in the CPI in 2005 (3.40%) to obtain a real interest rate in 2005 of 1.56%. The 2008

– 2009 nominal average interest rate for the revenue bond index was 5.39%. Subtract the annual average rate of increase in the CPI over this period (1.40%) to obtain a real interest rate of 3.99%.] Thus the real in terest rate for a set of representative tax exempt revenue bonds was some 1.8% to 2.4% higher in 2008/2009 than it was during EPA’s chosen period of 2003

– 2005. Again, these rates are likely to be higher still in the future.95 [Footnote 95: Using the CBO’ s most recent projections again, and applying EPA’s procedure of subtracting the percentage increase in the CPI as a means of converting from nominal to real interest rates, we obtain the following CBO projections regarding the real rate of interest on the ten - year Treasury note: 2010: 2.4% (4.1% nominal less 1.7% CPI increase); 2011: 3.1% (4.4% nominal less 1.3% CPI increase); 2012 - 2013: 3.7% (4.8% nominal less 1.1% CPI increase); 2014 - 2019: 3.6% (5.5% nominal less 1.9% CPI increase). Again, future rates a re projected as being significantly higher than current rates.] • If the real interest rate for tax exempt revenue bonds was some 1.8% to 2.4% higher in 2008/2009 than it was during EPA’s chosen period, then the real interest rate for GARBs specifically wa s also likely several hundred basis points higher during the most recent years of 2008/2009 than it was during the 2003

– 2005 period that EPA surveyed. We believe that the average quality of airport debt has probably deteriorated since 2003

– 2005 relativ e to the quality of municipal revenue bonds generally. The spread between GARB interest rates and the Bond Buyer index for revenue bonds generally has likely increased since 2003

– 2005. Based on survey data for 2003

– 2005, EPA estimated the real interest rate on GARBs to have averaged 2.89 %332 over that period. Apparently without considering any possible changes over time in this interest rate, EPA assumes that airports using GARBs to finance ELG compliance investments over the 2013

– 2018 timeframe will pa y an identical 2.89%/year real interest rate. We believe, in contrast, that GARB rates have increased since 2003 - 2005 to roughly 4.7% real during 2008/2009, and that they are likely to increase further still by 2013 - 2018. EPA should adopt more realistic pr ojections for the real interest rates likely to be paid by those airports that use GARBs to finance their ELG compliance investments some 3 to 8 years from now.96 [Footnote 96: We reiterate that we expect few airports, other than perhaps some large hubs, t o use GARBs for the bulk of their ELG compliance capital investments.] Response: In the economic analysis of the final rule, EPA is no longer using the prevailing bond rates to assess impacts of incremental option costs on affected entities and is using the Office of Management and Budget's suggested real discount rate of 7 percent to represent the opportunity cost of the capital needed to meet the rule requirements. However, as explained further in the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1

– 35, EPA believes that many of those affected will be able to obtain financing at rates lower than the 7 percent assumed rate. E_IMPACT_ANA - Economic impact analysis data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1198 - 2 The economic impacts of removing urea as a n airfield deicer would be detrimental to airports least capable of implementing a Best Available Technology (BAT). EPA states “EPA believes these [large] airports will be less affected than smaller airports by compliance costs...” (Fed. Reg. at 44705). Sm aller airports are typically in more rural, lower tax generating areas. This NPRM would further increase airfare costs to the consumer or increasing local government appropriations to the airports in regions least capable of increasing such appropriations. Response: The costs of removing urea and replacing with potassium acetate have been estimated and used to assess the economic impacts on all potentially affected airports, including small airports in rural areas. EPA has found the final rule to be eco nomically achievable. Additionally, EPA looked at cost per enplaned passenger and the incremental cost vs. baseline cost per enplaned passenger because these are industry benchmarks for determining airport competitiveness and has determined that on averag e the cost increase per enplaned passenger is negligible. T he Economic Analysis for Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (EPA - 821 - R - 12 - 004 ) presents costs ( Section 5.1), revenue impacts ( Section 5.2), cost per enplaned passenger ( Section 5.3), and cost per available seat mile to airlines serving each airport ( Section 5.6) differentiated by airport size. These results demonstrate the rule is economically achievable for the 135 small and non - hubs that are in - sco pe of the promulgated option; only 28 of these airports are projected to incur any costs at all. E_IMPACT_ANA - Economic impact analysis data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1200.1 - 3 Further evidence of the EPA’s meeting the statutory standard is the extensive Economic Impact Analysis Results for the proposed effluent limitation guidelines.6333 Response: EPA concurs that the economic impact analysis report shows that EPA has met the st atutory standards for the regulatory process. E_IMPACT_ANA - Economic impact analysis data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208 - 9 Has EPA's economic analysis of potential cost for compliance with the proposed ELGs included impact on the traveling public? For example, construction of a glycol/storm water collection facility and associated sewer line at Cedar Rapids, IA, Airport last year, in order to meet Iowa DNR requirements, resulted in an additional $4.50 per passenger charge. Significant infras tructure modifications at larger airports, especially those that may fall into the proposed 60% capture category, may result in significant financial impact on the traveling public. Response: First, EPA notes that the final rule does not establish unifo rm requirements to control aircraft deicing discharge (i.e. ADF collection and discharge requirements) at existing airports. These will continue to be established on a BPJ, site - specific basis. Therefore, the comments are largely not applicable to the fi nal rule. EPA has not estimated impacts on the traveling public as a part of an economic achievability analysis because such an impact is a secondary impact. We have assessed economic achievability only with respect to the entities required by the regulat ion to take action. EPA has, however, looked at cost per enplaned passenger and the incremental cost vs. baseline cost per enplaned passenger because these are industry benchmarks for determining airport competitiveness, and has determined that on average the cost increase per enplaned passenger is negligible. At the vast majority of airports, this increase is less than $0.25 per passenger under the promulgated option. E_IMPACT_ANA - Economic impact analysis data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1221.1 - 10 In its discussion of Economic Impact Methodologies (pg 97) EPA acknowledges the economic achievability impact on a route or airport basis and the difficulty this would create in determining financial viability of particular routes within the structur e of the complex airline and airport economic system. An analysis that is not reviewed is the air service impact this could have on particular routes, particularly for those locations that rely on air service for essential services. During the winter month s, air transportation is the only means of transportation into and out of many towns in the State of Alaska. These airports supply essential services such as food, medical supplies, postal services, and of course, movement of people, during the harsh winte r months when no other means of transportation is available. It is important for the EPA to understand that besides the direct economic impact of this rule (cost to collect and treat deicing storm water) additional economic impacts could occur to these loc ations where airline service is essential. Increased costs or decreased service will exponentially impact these locations. Response: First, EPA notes that the final rule does not establish uniform requirements to control aircraft deicing discharge (i.e. ADF collection and discharge requirements) at existing airports. These will continue to be established on a BPJ, site - specific basis. Therefore, the comments are largely not applicable to the final rule.334 Data are not available to perform an analysis of route - specific impacts or the likelihood of a reduction of service to airports. However, under the final rule, which only requires the use of products other than urea to perform pavement deicing, the projected cost of the rule is greatly diminished compa red to the proposed option. Under the final rule, compliance costs of pavement deicing requirements at existing Alaska airports will vary with weather, but not the number of departures or passengers. While costs are still projected to exceed 3 percent of revenues for Juneau, they are projected to be less than 6 percent of revenues; Anchorage’s projected costs are less than 1 percent of revenues. Compliance costs at Bethel and Ralph Wien Memorial are projected to compose 0.26 percent of the Alaska Rural A ir port System’s budget. Furthermore, cost per passenger is $0.564 per enplaned passenger at Juneau International. The Agency believes these costs can be borne without endangering Alaska's Rural Air Service. E_IMPACT_ANA - Economic impact analysis data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1222.1 - 7 EPA should update the affordability analysis of the proposal as well as its assessment of new technology, such as infrared deicing. Much of the data EPA used for its economic assessment as well as assessment o f BAT is already more than two years old. AMWA and AWWA suggest that EPA consider the advancements of new technologies and their affordability in developing the final rule and update these documents as warranted. Response: EPA has developed updated data for the economic profile of the affected entities. EPA has incorporated data from 2007 to 2009 to add to the data collected in 2004 to 2006, expanding the data available for analysis to 6 years. EPA did investigate new technologies, but determined that th ey did not, at this time, meet the criteria for being identified as Best Available Technology. See chapter 7 and section 11.2.4 of the TDD. E_IMPACT_ANA - Economic impact analysis data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 130 EPA’s Economic Analys is is arbitrary and capricious because the Economic Data It Relies Upon Does Not Provide a Reasonable Basis for Determining the Issue 1. EPA’s Analyses Undergirding Its Economic Achievability Determination Are Based on Extremely Limited Data That Are Not R easonably Representative of Economic Conditions in the Industry Of the analyses EPA relies upon to make its economic achievability determination, three of them

– the Airport Revenue Test, Airport DSCR Test and Airline Market Impacts Test

– are based on a s ingle year, 2006. And, while the Airline Sales Test is based on three years, 20042006, when EPA applies the Sales Test to airlines with profits and/or positive net income it bases its analysis on just one year of data: 2006.334 As EPA itself notes, “2006 r epresents the first profitable year for the airline industry since 2000.”335 In fact, 2006 and 2007 have been the only profitable years for the industry since 2000, with 2006 by far the better of those years. EPA appears to justify its choice of 2006 for t his analysis, stating “2004 and 2005 appeared to be abnormally poor financial years for the industry, while the financial data for 2006 seemed more representative of what might reasonably be expected in the future.”336 A more comprehensive, multi - year anal ysis of airlines’ global return on invested capital versus their weighted average cost of capital incurred shows there is not a single year since 1993 in which the industry covered its cost of capital.337 [FOOTNOTE:337 1993 - 2004 from McKinsey study; 2005 - 2 010F from IATA data/forecasts of global net income and estimates of invested capital. Return (ROIC) Cost (WACC) • 93 4.4 8.2 • 94 5.3 9.4 • 95 6.2 8.9 • 96 6.4 8.7 • 97 6.5335 8.7 • 98 6.0 7.6 • 99 5.2 7.9 • 00 5.1 8.3 • 01 0.7 7.3 • 02 1.6 6.9 • 03 2.3 6.3 • 04 2.9 6.6 • 05 2.8 6.6 • 06 4.4 7.1 • 07 4.5 6.8 08 1.3 9.0 09F 1.5 12.0 10F 2.2 8.0 ] However, EPA understands that “[h]istorically, air transportation industry profitability has been highly cyclical,” and that since deregulation, “profits have become i ncreasingly cyclical.”338 That is an understatement: over the past nine years U.S. airlines have recorded approximately $60 billion in net losses.339 [FOOTNOTE:339 DOT Form 41 filings.] It is not possible for a single year

– or even three years

– to be rep resentative of the industry. Indeed, EPA acknowledges that “the dramatic increase in fuel costs in 2008 has once again worsened the overall financial picture for the industry.”340 Since that time, with the global economic downturn and severe drop off in de mand for air transportation, the financial condition of the industry has deteriorated. As a result, historical analysis of economic conditions in the airline industry certainly does not reflect present conditions in the industry. Economic conditions in the near - term future can be reasonably anticipated, subject of course to significant uncertainties. Even given these significant uncertainties, near - term economic conditions are, at least, more reasonably reflective of economic conditions the industry is like ly to face in the compliance period than the 2004 - 2006 “snapshot” of industry conditions. Response: EPA's analysis of the proposed rule was based on 3 years of data, as shown in the proposed rule record. Second, EPA has expanded its data and analyses to incorporate data from 2007 to 2009, adding to the data collected for 2004 to 2006, resulting in 6 years of data used in the analyses. The results are in " Extrapolate economic impact analyses from 2004 through 2009" (DCN AD01295 ). E_IMPACT_ANA - Economic impact analysis data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 131 Economic Data on the Industry Is Readily Available So There Is No Practical Bar to EPA Using Data that Reasonably Reflects Industry Conditions Historic economic data on the airl ine industry are widely available and EPA could easily discount compliance costs for any year in the past. Therefore, there is no practical reason for EPA to have limited its analysis to such a narrow window. EPA must make at least a reasonable effort to e stimate impacts on the industry during the compliance period

– its failure to do so renders its determination of “Economic Achievability” legally insupportable. Certainly, there is nothing in the Record that takes account of the recent dramatic downturn in the economy or that supports the contention that the selected time periods are reflective of conditions that will prevail in the industry during the compliance period. Response: EPA has expanded its data and analyses to incorporate data from 2007 throu gh 2009, adding to the data collected for 2004 through 2006, resulting in 6 years of data used in the analyses. The additional years of analysis support EPA's determination that the rule is economically achievable. The results are in " Extrapolate economi c impact analyses from 2004 through 2009" (DCN AD01295). E_IMPACT_ANA - Economic impact analysis data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 132 EPA Has Failed to Analyze Broader Economic Impacts, Rendering Its Analysis Legally Insupportable In addition to its obligation to determine “economic achievability” pursuant to the CWA, EPA is under an independent obligation flowing from EO 12866 and/or its own guidance to analyze broader impacts. It fails to do so. For example, regardless of its assumpt ions regarding pass - through of costs from airlines to customers, EPA concedes it is clear that “[i]n the long run, however, airlines must cover the costs to336 remain in operation, and will adjust capacity to meet demand.”341 Here, the implication is that in the long run, the cost to airlines is zero because they “cover all costs.” The cost, however, is in the form of lowered capacity (supply) and lower demand. Elsewhere, in discussing the effect of PFCs (a charge added directly to the ticket price) EPA recogn izes that, even if the cost is passed through directly to the passenger, the airlines bear the cost “indirectly through their impact on demand for air transportation services.”342 While the effect on airlines may be measured in terms of operating revenues, that effect

– as noted below

– is a function of the price elasticity of demand. In any event, however, reduced supply and demand reflect very real costs to consumers in the form of higher fares or reduced service levels (manifested either as reduced frequ encies in some markets and elimination of service in others). This will, in turn, have broader effects on the economy. Response: For effluent guidelines, in general EPA does not estimate impacts on consumers or the broader economy as a part of an econom ic achievability analysis because such an impact is a secondary impact. Only the entities directly required by the regulation to take action are assessed for economic achievability. EPA has, however, looked at cost per enplaned passenger and the increment al cost vs. baseline cost per enplaned passenger because these are industry benchmarks for determining airport competitiveness and has determined that on average the cost increase per enplaned passenger is negligible. At the vast majority of airports, this increase is less than $0.25 per passenger. Furthermore, EPA’s market analysis accounted for the impact of passed - through costs on passenger demand for air transportations services and consequent impacts to airline revenues as well as the direct impact on airline costs. E_IMPACT_ANA - Economic impact analysis data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 106 In the economic analysis document, EPA presents a profile of the air transportation industry to provide background information on the industry sec tors affected by this regulation.240 However, this profile is significantly outdated as it is based on financial and operational activity results from 2004 to 2006.241 The report states that “the year 2006 represents the first profitable year for the airli ne industry since 2000,”242 but it is silent on the results of recent years, particularly 2008 and 2009 when the U.S. airlines lost $5.1 billion243 and $2.9 billion244 respectively. Even though the document makes some references to the increase in fuel pri ces during 2008245 it does not make any attempts to consider more recent financial information or the challenges faced by the air transportation industry in the estimation of the economic impacts of the Proposed Rule. The economic impacts generated by the costs of this proposed regulation are based on outdated financial information and cost estimates from 2006.246 EPA did not attempt to make any forecasts or calculate the impacts based on more recent results. Considering the worsening financial situation of airlines and airports, it is clear that EPA has failed to consider significant new information that it should have been taken into account before issuing the Proposed Rule. The TDD Economic Analysis document correctly states that the air transportation in dustry has faced significant financial challenges over much of the past decade. However, based on four - year - old information, the economic analysis document fails to address the critical negative impacts to the industry that have taken place since that time . Specifically, since 2001, U.S. airlines have collectively lost nearly $60 billion, according to the Air Transport Association.247 The unprecedented volatility in oil prices in 2008, when the price of a barrel of oil reached $145, sent airlines and airpor ts into a significant financial crisis. The domestic and global recession that followed thereafter and continued throughout 2009 has left many of the airlines struggling to stay in business

– even as financial losses continue. EPA failed to recognize and i nclude in the Proposed Rule that in 2008 five airlines filed for bankruptcy and four ceased operations altogether.248 In 2009, concerns over the H1N1 virus only exacerbated these problems for the airlines and continued the pressure on the financial health not only of U.S. carriers, but airports and airport authorities as well. The years 2008 and 2009 were particularly challenging for the major airline carriers,337 as noted by extreme revenue pressure driven by deteriorating demand, particularly for premium air travel. For example, in the month of October 2009, passenger revenues were 15 percent lower compared to the prior year.249 The airlines have tried to offset the decline in demand and to mitigate its impacts by removing capacity from the system and by impl ementing new fees in the form of an “a la carte” pricing model, through which amenities and services that were previously included in the ticket fare (e.g., checked bags, soft drinks, etc.) are now individually priced and available for purchase in addition to the ticket fare at the gate or on - board. Given expectations for a continued state of weakness in the U.S. economy coupled with the ongoing capacity trimming actions by the major airline carriers, it is generally agreed that any near - term recovery for t he U.S. aviation industry is unlikely. While fuel costs have remained relatively stable for the past few months, they continue to be at historically high levels of ~$80 per barrel. Recent economic data may indicate a possible bottom to the current recessio nary cycle, but U.S. unemployment continues to be high and some of the ease in recent passenger traffic declines may be more reflective of the abundance of deep discounted airfares being offered by U.S. carriers. The leisure traffic component is generating demand, while the core business - based travel remains fundamentally weak; the current leisure demand could moderate should airfares move higher. IATA expects North American carriers to post a collective loss of $2 billion in 2010 and carriers worldwide to lose $5.6 billion for the year.250 Nowhere in the Proposed Rule does EPA acknowledge such harsh economic realities. That fact (among many others outlined in these comments), the Port Authority maintains, would render the Proposed Rule incomplete and requir e the EPA to reanalyze the validity of this rule - making effort. According to the Air Transport Association, the end of 2009 saw a strengthening in demand compared to 2008 results; however, year - on - year comparisons are boosted by weak 2008 demand. The outlo ok for 2010 is characterized by the presence of three significant risks: fuel prices, potential security cost increases, and the stability of the recovery in the broader economy. ATA believes that these risks could either continue the frail recovery or bri ng another downward slide.251 In addition, EPA does not consider the other investments airlines will have to make in the next five to ten years. For instance, it is expected that U.S. airlines will have to invest $20 - $25 billion through 2025 to equip aircr aft for FAA’s planned satellite - based NextGen system,252 which is one of the most relevant projects in the industry to modernize the air traffic control system. Given the uncertainty of the economic environment, and the ongoing capital needs for aviation i nfrastructure (including the investments in NextGen and other critical programs), the Port Authority posits that the airlines will be reluctant to carry the financial burden of initiatives, such as those required in this Proposed Rule, that do not provide direct economic benefits to their operation. We have experienced this reluctance firsthand in dealing with the airlines that serve our airports. Unexpected capital investments could hinder the ability of the airline industry to become profitable going forw ard. Airports Downturn. EPA’s analysis is silent regarding the financial difficulties that face the airports in the country. Considering that most of the airports potentially affected by the Proposed Rule are publicly owned and operated, as governmental or quasi - governmental entities, EPA’s analysis assumes that “airports do not earn a profit or loss in the traditional financial sense; in fact, many airports have been operated with the expectation that they will break even financially, with airline customer s legally required to cover expenditures in excess of the cost.”253 However, the current economic environment has negatively impacted the financial health of airports and airport authorities as well. Airport financial results determine the airports’ abilit y to finance necessary capital projects. According to a recent report from Moody’s (U.S. Airport Sector Outlook), U.S. airports still face risks from a difficult operating environment and the potential for additional capacity reductions; Moody’s rates the outlook as negative for 2010 and beyond. Moody’s argues that U.S. airport credit remains questionable as growth is not expected to take hold soon and the majority of rated airports have lost financial flexibility in the downturn. The decline in enplanement s in 2008 and 2009 has put pressure on the financial health of the airports, requiring them to trim expenses and reduce capital plans. In addition, airports face uncertainty in federal funding, potential impacts of increased oil prices, and reduced demand on activity, and ultimately the revenues that airports derive therefrom.254 The Port Authority has not been immune to the downward changes that have affected the airline industry. Decline in traffic has been reflected in a decline in airport revenues. In 2 007, the Port Authority’s commercial airports served 110338 million passengers and were forecasted to serve 111 million passengers in 2008. However, due to the recent economic slowdown and its negative impact in the aviation industry as described above, the P ort Authority served only 107 million passengers. Traffic declined still further in 2009 with only 102 million passengers using New York’s major airports. The combination of the increasing price of fuel (which comprises 45 percent of the airline industry’s operating costs) and slowing economic conditions has resulted in reduced revenue for the Port Authority, due to the airlines’ reductions in air service in order to reduce costs. This is consistent with the Port Authority’s other lines of transportation

– bridges, tunnels, rail, and seaport operation. Airports are one of the most important revenue generators for the Port Authority, comprising nearly 60 percent of the Port Authority’s gross revenues. In the past when airlines with significant air service to the airports went out of business, the Port Authority airports’ financial performance generally withstood the airline industry’s turmoil. After September 11, 2001, when traffic fell by 10 percent, gross revenues and aviation income from operations remained flat. Historically, we have found that the risk to aviation revenues has been minimal due to (1) the major origin and destination travel market that our airports serve and (2) lease agreements with the airlines for use of airfield facilities that recover the costs through terminal rents and flight fees regardless of which airline serves the customer. However, in this latest round of airline distress and decline in traffic, the Port Authority has seen its revenue decrease, not only because the reduction in traffic has a direct impact on activity - based revenue (such as concessions and parking), but also because the continued pressure from the airlines to keep costs low has resulted in lower expenditures by the Port Authority. As a result, revenue generated fr om airline cost recovery agreements has declined. A decline in traffic increases the cost for the airlines serving the airport, which makes the airports less competitive, and at the same time subject to a higher scrutiny and pressure from the airlines to c ontain costs. The economic downturn has had a negative impact on the Port Authority’s economic health as a whole. The agency has seen reduced activity levels at all of its facilities and the resultant revenue impact. To offset any potential revenue loss an d to maintain the capacity required to meet the capital commitments, the Port Authority has held the line on spending with no growth in annual operating expenses. Capital investments anticipating a requirement for deicing pads and on - site treatment have no t been included in the Port Authority’s 2007 - 2016 capital plan; therefore, resources have not been allocated for such investments. In addition, the current capital plan is negatively affected by a reduced revenue base. As revenue from its facilities declin es or remains flat, the Port Authority Board of Commissioners would have a hard time justifying additional investments in projects that would not generate incremental revenue or have any other appreciable benefit such as amelioration of environmental impac t. [FOOTNOTE: 243 International Air Transportation Association; http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/2009 - 06 - 08 - 01.htm accessed February 13, 2010.] [FOOTNOTE: 244 International Air Transport Association; http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/2009 - 12 - 15 - 01.htm acces sed February 13, 2010.] [FOOTNOTE: 247 Air Transport Association; http://www.airlines.org/news/releases/2009/news_11 - 12 - 09.htm accessed February 3, 2010.] [FOOTNOTE: 248 http://recession.org/library/list - of - bankrupt - airlines accessed February 1, 2010.] [FO OTNOTE: 249 Air Transport Association; http://www.airlines.org/news/releases/2009/news_11 - 20 - 09.htm accessed February 3, 2010.] [FOOTNOTE: 250 International Air Transport Association; http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/2009 - 12 - 15 - 01.htm accessed February 13, 2010.] [FOOTNOTE: 251 “Airline Industry Upturn Still Fragile, ATA Economist Warns.” Aviation Week, February 1, 2010.] [FOOTNOTE: 252 http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=8251 accessed February 10, 2010.] [FOOTNOTE: 254 “U.S. Airport Outlook Ra ted Negative For 2010 And Beyond, Moody’s Says.” Aviation Week, February 9, 2010.] Response: EPA has expanded its data and analyses to incorporate data from 2007 through 2009, adding to the data collected for 2004 to 2006, resulting in 6 years of data u sed in the analyses. The additional years of analysis support EPA's determination that the rule is economically achievable despite the financial difficulties experienced during this decade. The results are in " Extrapolate economic impact analyses from 200 4 through 2009" (DCN AD01295 ). EPA notes that the final rule does not set uniform339 requirements for collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports, which substantially reduces the projected capital costs of today’s final rule to large airports, such a s those operated by the Port Authority, compared to the projected costs of the proposed rule. E_IMPACT_ANA - Economic impact analysis data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 30 Illogical Results from EPA’s Non - ADF Based Scoping Process Predictably Generates Illogical Financial Impacts and Unreasonable Cost - ineffectiveness. The analysis presented in this section was conducted using EPA’s Airport Impact Model spreadsheet.33 [Footnote 33: Airport Impact Model, EPA - HQ - OW 2004 - 0038 - 0631 (2008 ).] This model provides EPA’s characterization of service level (i.e., hub category), ADF usage, SOFP days statistical weight, un - weighted and weighted ammonia and total COD removal, and un - weighted and weighted cost for total pollutant removals for 153 ai rports under each of the four options considered. COD attributable to only the ADF collection component of the Proposed Rule was estimated for each airport by subtracting the COD of ammonia removed from total COD removed under Option 3, assuming 2.73 lbs C OD/lb ammonia. Costs for COD removal associated with ADF collection for each airport were calculated by subtracting urea substitution and monitoring costs from total Option 3 costs. Weights were applied to the resulting totals for each airport. The weighte d totals were then summed to obtain totals for the Proposed Rule. The information on hub category and SOFP days was used in examining stratified subsets of the population of airports represented in EPA’s model. The following table shows estimates of cost p er pound of COD removed as the result of the ADF controls in the Proposed Rule by hub size and SOFP days, using an SOFP threshold of 3 days. All values are based on EPA’s estimates of COD removal and cost. [See submittal for Table 6. Costs Per Pound of COD Removal by Hub Category and SOFP Days.] To put these costs in perspective, EPA estimated a cost of $6.30/lb COD removed at airports with less than 10,000 annual departures, and cited lack of cost effectiveness in justifying the exclusion of these airports from the Proposed Rule.34 [Footnote 34: See Memorandum, Regulatory Option Development for the Airport Deicing Operations Rulemaking Proposal, EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1099, at 15 (November 2008).] The per pound COD removed in the rule at airports in areas with 3 or fewer SOFP days is roughly an order of magnitude higher than at airports where SOFP days exceed 3. In addition, the cost per pound of COD removed by the proposed ADF collection requirements at small and non - hub airports in any region of the country i s dramatically higher than at medium and large hub airports. The following figure shows estimated cost per pound of COD removed versus estimated ADF usage at airports where additional controls would be required to comply with the proposed 20 percent collec tion requirement. Again, all values are based on EPA’s estimates of COD removal and cost. The figure shows that the cost per pound of COD is significantly higher at lower use airports, and the “knee of the curve” falls around 40,000

– 50,000 gallons per ye ar. [See submittal for Figure 3. Cost Per Pound of COD Associated with ADF Removed by the Proposed Rule Versus Annual ADF Usage at Airports Where Additional Controls Are Estimated to be Required to Achieve 20 Percent Collection.] The values presented here are an optimistic portrayal of the cost effectiveness of the proposed rule. All of these analyses are based on EPA’s estimates of ADF usage, baseline COD loadings, COD removal, and cost of compliance. As is presented elsewhere in these comments, there is r eason to believe that ADF usage, baseline COD loadings to surface waters and pollutant removal have been overestimated and collection and treatment costs have been underestimated. Correcting inaccuracies in EPA’s estimates will significantly increase the c ost per pound of COD removed by the Proposed Rule. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements to control aircraft deicing discharges (i.e. ADF collection and/or associated discharge requirements). Therefore, this comment is not app licable to the final rule.340 E_MKT_ANA - Economic analysis – airline market analysis Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 141 The Airline Sales Test Does Not Evaluate Impacts on Routes and Potential Loss of Service to Particular Locations When airlines make service decisions about a particular market or airport, they consider primarily the revenues generated and costs incurred in that market

– not at the national level based on some average U.S. airport figure. This is especially pertinent when cities/communities try to attract “low cost/low - fare” service. It is still more pertinent when for communities seeking to attract any air service, as EPA recognized in its 1999 study of the industry: However, the greatest potential economic impact to the industry from implementing capital improvements to reduce discharges from airport deicing operations may be a reduction of quality or frequ ency of service to airports that do not serve large cities (i.e., smaller airports). For example, an airline may choose to operate less flights per day into a particular airport or to operate smaller aircraft on that route. 371 While the economic analysis attempts to assess impacts on the airports which will incur costs under the Proposed Rule, it does not evaluate how increased costs at these airports may affect service to other airports. As EPA acknowledges, increasing costs at large airports will affect airline operating costs at that airport and, therefore, the costs of providing service on any route served by that airport. EPA also notes the role of the Essential Air Service (“EAS”) program in maintaining marginal routes: [T]he government developed a pr ogram called the Essential Air Service to ensure communities’ access to air travel. Smaller commuter airlines have replaced larger carriers in providing service to these airports. Even with subsidies, which are reflected in reduced passenger fares, these s maller commuter planes are less profitable and the GAO (2007b) found that these flights are the first flights to be eliminated during times of financial downturn. 372 The FAA reports that the EAS program currently maintains access to the nation’s air trans portation system for many small communities by subsidizing service to large hubs that will incur costs under the Proposed Rule. A brief review of a recent report shows subsidies of routes to BOS and IAD ensure that 16 communities in Maine, New Hampshire, V ermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia have such access.373 [FOOTNOTE:373 See FAA, EAS and Domestic Analysis Division, Subsidized Essential Air Service Outside of Alaska (January 1, 2010) (available here: http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviatio n/X50%20Role_Files/essentialairservice.htm#US).] Similarly, subsidies to routes served by JNU and ANC ensure access to at about 15 communities in Alaska.374 [FOOTONOTE:374 FAA, EAS and Domestic Analysis Division, Alaska Subsidized Essential Air Service (Ja nuary 1, 2010) (available here: http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/X 50%20Role_Files/Alaska010110.pdf). EPA also concludes that the State of Alaska would have to increase state - funded subsidies to five other rural airports (BET, Ketchikan, Sitka, OME, Ralph Wein) to pay for the compliance costs imposed on these airports. EA at 5 - 13 to 5 - 14.] EPA must consider if the service provided to these communities would be threatened by the increased costs imposed by the Proposed Rule. Given the especially high ratio of projected costs to operating revenues at JNU and ANC, the routes served by these airports should be of particular concern.375 [FOOTNOTE:375 We believe ANC is likely a Tier One airport under EPA’s proposed 460,000 annual ADF usage threshold: EPA projects c osts will amount to 5.15% of operating revenues. Document - 1099 at 28. JNU is projected to incur costs amounting to 19.5% of its operating revenues. Document - 1099 at 18.] These impacts also need to be taken into account in EPA’s Small Business Analysis. Response: See response to E IMPACT ANA, comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1221.1 - 10. Furthermore, u nder the final rule, one of the other two airports mentioned in this comment, Washington Dulles International (IAD), is projected to incur no compliance costs. Logan International (BOS) is projected to incur costs that compose less than 0.015 percent of airport revenues, and less than $0.004 per enplaned passenger. Therefore, EPA has determined that these costs will have a negligible impact on service at these ai rports.341 E_MKT_ANA - Economic analysis – airline market analysis Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 142 The Airline Market Impact Analysis Is Meaningless As noted above, in its Notice, EPA asserts that, it “also analyzed the impacts of costs rela tive to common air carrier benchmarks for unit measures of cost and capacity such as cost per available seat - mile.”376 Although this appears to imply some direct analysis of the amount these benchmarks are affected, there is no mention of the results of an y such analysis in the Notice, EA, or any other document in the Record. Instead, it appears that this analysis ended, ultimately, in another rendition of the “sales test” in which the denominator (airline revenues) is determined assuming airlines can pass no costs through to their customers and that airlines can pass all costs through to their customers. EPA acknowledges that the analysis initially conducted

– evaluating the ratio of compliance costs to total operating revenues

– is equivalent to assuming t hat airlines are able to pass no costs through. 377 Assuming airlines could pass through all of their costs to customers, EPA calculated the amount airlines would raise fares throughout their route structures to cover compliance costs. To make this calcula tion, EPA assumed a price elasticity of demand of - 1.5 (which is applied to both passenger and cargo operations, though derived looking only at passenger operations), which, according to EPA, means the increased fares would result in decreased revenues.378 Under these assumptions, EPA effectively lowers the operating revenue denominator against which the compliance cost numerator is compared. This, in effect, increases the possibility that the Agency’s 1% and 3% thresholds may be exceeded. This amounts to a nother rendition of the Airline Sales Test, which fails as a test of economic achievability for the same reasons set out in detail above. Response: EPA projected impacts on the supply and demand for air transportation services based on available informa tion. Supply was measured using the acknowledged standard in this industry: available seat miles; if 100 percent of costs are passed through from airports to airlines, airline operating cost per ASM increases, decreasing supply. The Agency had data on th e price elasticity of demand for passenger air travel, and selected the value recommended by ATA; a literature search found no estimates available for either the price elasticity of demand for cargo services or for the price elasticity of air transportatio n supply. Therefore, the Agency used standard limiting cases defined by a perfectly elastic price elasticity of supply and a perfectly inelastic price elasticity of supply. The real value lies somewhere between these two extremes, and the true results of the market analysis will lie somewhere between the two extremes. An implication of perfectly inelastic supply is that all costs will be borne by airlines with no costs borne by passengers. These are implications of the modeling assumption and define bou ndaries for costs and impacts. Because one boundary is mathematically identical to the revenue test does not negate the usefulness of the market analysis. The market analysis defined the circumstances under which these results occur, provides one boundar y of the results, and allows a qualitative assessment of the likelihood that these circumstances represent the market and thus the likelihood that this boundary represents the true outcome. Discussion of using the revenue test to evaluate the airline indus try is presented in detail in responses to comments: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1

– 137 through

– 140. E_MKT_ANA - Economic analysis – airline market analysis Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 33 AAAE believes that the following airline and airpo rt statistical data points should be revised to reflect the current economic climate of the industry: Section 2.2.1 Number and Size

– “While boardings grew from 2003 to 2005, gains were much smaller or negative from 2005 to 2006, with the exception of doub le - digit342 growth at nonprimary commercial service airports. Large hub airports posted positive growth every year since 2003. The overall growth from 2003 to 2006 for passenger boardings was 13.0 percent over four years.” Airline traffic is not likely to ret urn to 2006 levels for the next few years, therefore the above does not accurately reflect this impact. Response: EPA concurs with this statement and therefore extended the economic analysis of the final rulemaking through 2009. The models for these additional years of analysis use the passenger boarding numbers and airport financial data for those years. E_REV_TES T - Economic analysis – revenue test Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1221.1 - 9 EPA assumed that airports would carry the brunt of the cost impact from these regulatory requirements and compared the costs to the airports annualized compliance costs (a.k.a. Revenue Test) and debt service coverage ratio. The rule specifically notes that the airports are generally quasi - governmental entities and thus the cost comparison is not equivalent to that of a for - profit private - sector business. What the analysis does not include is acknowledgement that although airports will pay for many of these improvements, the actual cost of the programs, either through direct payment or debt payment, will be, to a significant level, covered by the airline carriers that operate at each airport. Airlines work under varying agreements for payments to the airport . Airlines may pay for lease space, landing fees, and additional fees (security, etc..) at each airport. These fees are directly linked to the costs associated with operating the airport and thus will grow as additional revenue is needed to cover complianc e costs or service debt. The rule does acknowledge that a large percentage of airport costs are passed through to airlines (pg 102) but does not then consider the impact these costs will have on these airlines as the ultimate payee of the regulation. The E PA notes that airports are cautious to raise rates on airlines because they fear losing airline traffic, however the EPA does not acknowledge that this fear does not lead the airports to other revenue streams to pay for this regulation but simply to fulfil lment of these fears if the costs of implementing this regulation are incurred by the airports and airlines. The EPA also acknowledges that airlines have a difficult time passing on additional costs to their passengers (pg 104) and states that "Thus, it ap pears that at least in the short run, it is difficult in today's business climate for airlines to pass through a significant percentage of costs to their passengers." If the costs cannot be passed along to passengers, and the airports cannot obtain the cos ts from other sources, then that leaves airline revenue as the primary source for fulfillment of the requirements of the proposed rule. However, the EPA, in this proposed rule, does not assess how airline revenue is impacted; thus, the impact on the entiti es that will ultimately bear the increased costs is not considered as part of the Revenue Test, as other ELGs have done. The EPA concentrates on the costs to airports partially due to the current NPDES permitting structure. EPA also posits that this is at least partially due to the fact that the airport is the holder of the NPDES permit and the airlines are generally "co - permittees." (pg 116) This is in fact not true in many locations, particularly in the state of Alaska. Alaska Airlines, and other airline and airport tenants, hold their own NPDES permits at each of the airports affected by this regulation and thus are not simply " co - permittees" to the airports. This system does not put airlines in a "secondary" position at the airport, but requires the air line to have the same regulatory requirements as the airports in many locations. This is particularly true at locations in the state of Alaska where the airline has traditionally been the only permit holder and works in tandem with the airport on all regul atory issues. As EPA has noted, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) owns most of the airports in the state of Alaska. Thus, the State would initially bear the cost burden of this regulation. What the EPA does not acknowledge is that additional costs for airport services, such as storm water collection and treatment, are generally then passed onto the airport tenants. In addition, Juneau International Airport, which is listed as a "Tier Two" airport is not operated by the Stat e but is owned and operated by the City/Borough of Juneau. A city -343 owned airport does not have the economic capacity to absorb the cost of any new regulatory requirements without passing along a significant portion, if not all, of the costs to their tenant s. In addition, there are locations where the airlines would be responsible for the direct costs of this regulation. Some airport locations require airlines, and not the airport entity, to own and operate GRVs and must dispose of the collected wastewater t hemselves. Ignoring the indirect and direct costs that will be incurred by airlines creates a cost void within this regulation that must be reviewed. Airline revenue and income statements are widely available for individual airlines and the industry as a w hole and could be tested against the Economically Achievable criteria for regulations under the Clean Water Act. Alaska Airlines believes that the Revenue Test, or other means of assessing economic impact, must be applied to the airline industry before it is determined that this rule is Economically Achievable. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. Such requirements will continue to be established on a BPJ, site - specific bas is. As such, much of this comment is not applicable to the final rule. Nevertheless, EPA acknowledges that at many airports, airlines are co - permittees with the airport and that the Agency should therefore analyze economic impacts to those airlines as wel l as impacts to the airports themselves. EPA has performed this analysis for the final rule and it is included in Section 5.7 of the Economic Analysis. EPA did analyze impacts to airline finances for the proposed rule under the assumption that all costs were passed through to airlines and none could be passed through to passengers. It performed this analysis at three different levels: airline net income, airline operating profit, and airline operating revenue for 2006 (see Section 5.3 of the Economic Ana lysis for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (EPA - 821 - R - 09 - 005). EPA acknowledges that Juneau International Airport is projected to have the highest level of economic impacts under the BAT requirements of the final rule among those airports subject to the rule. EPA also notes that under the Clean Water Act, we determine whether the rule is “economically achievable” across the industry, which is not synonymous with “no economic impacts.” The projected e conomic impacts to Juneau International under the final rule as measured by the revenue test are much smaller than under the proposed rule (less than 6 percent of airport operating revenues). Juneau incurs larger projected costs than many other airports un der the final rule because it generates the fourth largest amount of COD and ammonia discharged. E_REV_TEST - Economic analysis – revenue test Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 143 EPA Has Failed to Provide Any Reasoned Basis for Adopting the Thresholds of Significance Relevant to Applying the “Revenue Test” to Airports EPA describes its methodology for applying the Airport Revenue Test in the Notice, affirming, consistent with its Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, that: • If annuali zed compliance costs are less than 1 percent of revenues, the option is generally considered affordable; • If annualized compliance costs are greater than 1 percent, but less than 3 percent of revenues, the option may be considered affordable if only a few entities are affected and the majority incurs costs less than 1 percent; • If annualized compliance costs are greater than 3 percent of revenues, the option is not generally considered affordable.380 EPA articulates this test in different terms in its Gui delines, observing that for the middle range (compliance costs with 1 - 3%), they can “probably be considered affordable” if “only a small percentage” of affected entities are in this category and “the rest fall below;” where compliance costs are above 3% of revenues, EPA states “if only a small percentage” of affected communities fall within 1 - 3% affirms this “indicates that the requirements are placing a heavy344 burden on the community.”381 However, it is only in the EA that EPA explains exactly how the test was applied in its decision making process in this rulemaking. Specifically, EPA explains: The only relevant guidance EPA found for determining what might be considered an appropriate measure of “a few entities” in this context was its Final Guidance for E PA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (2006). This guidance states that it can be presumed there is not a significant impact to a substantial number of small entities if fewer than 1 00 small entities or less than 20 percent of affected small entities incur costs exceeding 3 percent of revenues.382 EPA then explains: EPA believes that (on the basis of its RFA guidance) if a substantial number of small entities would not be significantl y affected by a proposed rulemaking option, then applying the same standard to large entities, which are less vulnerable to economic impacts, demonstrates that a substantial number of large entities are also not significantly affected. Thus, for the purpos e of this rulemaking effort, EPA has determined: • If fewer than 100 entities, or less than 20 percent of affected entities incur compliance costs that are less than 3 percent of operating revenues, then the option is considered affordable. 383 As an initi al matter, the RFA Guidance does not state any standard under which “it can be presumed there is not a significant impact.” To the contrary, in the RFA Guidance EPA repeatedly (indeed, using bolded text to emphasize the point) states the opposite. In analy zing previous rules, EPA has often defined the lower threshold as compliance costs of 1% of sales and the higher threshold as compliance costs of 3% of sales as shown in the example Table 2. The example thresholds provided in Table 2 are for illustrative p urposes only and are not meant to imply a uniform standard. It is the responsibility of each program to identify appropriate thresholds for a particular rule and set of regulated small entities. 384 Table 2 represents an example of a decision process you m ay use to determine whether your rule may have a SISNOSE (i.e., which category to assign to your rule). The thresholds displayed in Table 2 are 1% and 3% for determining the significance of the economic impact on small entities, and 100 and 1000 and/or 20% for determining if the number of small entities impacted is substantial. These thresholds are only examples. No bright line exists for determining whether a given set of economic impacts constitutes a SISNOSE. . . . EPA has not established fixed definitio ns for the terms, reflecting the practical difficulty of stipulating what would uniformly represent a significant economic impact or a substantial number in every regulatory circumstance.385 Perhaps most tellingly, EPA notes in Table 2 that: This table and the numbers in it are given only as examples of the decision process and thresholds that may be chosen for a particular rule. The certification decision should not be solely based upon the application of this table nor should this table be referenced in y our preamble.386 By basing its determination on the example thresholds set out in the RFA Guidance, EPA has unambiguously violated its own direction that it may not do this and utterly failed to fulfill the “responsibility... to identify appropriate thresh olds for a particular rule and set of regulated... entities.” At the very least, EPA must fulfill its responsibility to explain: • The basis of its “determination” that “[i]f fewer than 100 entities, or less than 20 percent of affected entities incur compl iance costs that are less than 3 percent of operating revenues, then the option is considered affordable.” • Why thresholds of significance derived to apply to private sector entities may be reasonably applied to public sector entities. Response: In the final rule, EPA no longer cites, as it did at proposal, the RFA guidance for determining thresholds for the economic achievability of the rule. Instead, for the final rule, EPA notes that there are other guidance documents which recommend that the revenue test be considered for the evaluation of economic effects on non - profit entities: Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (EPA 240 - R - 00 - 003) (“ Guidelines ”); and the Economic Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and345 Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category (EPA - 821 - B - 99 - 005). Furthermore, EPA’s financial assessment did not rely solely on the revenue test, but examined multiple indicators such as airports’ ability to incur debt, and impacts to airports’ ultimate community, the passengers that use the air transportation provided at the airport in the form of cost per enplaned passenger, as also suggested in the Guidelines . However, EPA considered the revenue test to be the primary test of economic achievability. We also note th e remarks of another commenter that “impact on landing fees and cost per enplaned passenger have promise as better metrics for evaluating airport impacts than those metrics that EPA is currently using,” (although the commenter stopped short of a full endor sement of these two measures, ( EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1

– 134) ). As noted, for the final rule, EPA did take the cost per enplaned passenger into account. We also note that no commenter has suggested what different thresholds might be better used to dete rmine economic achievability. E_REV_TEST - Economic analysis – revenue test Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 144 EPA’s Proposed Rulemaking Fails the Airport Revenue Test Under Any Reasonable Application of the Test Even using EPA’s standard and cost estimates the Proposed Rule fails the test Any test of economic achievability must be applied to appropriate universe o f entities

– in this case, defined by the appropriate subcategories. Among Tier One Airports, under EPA’s own analysis, two will incur costs greater than 3% of operating revenues and four will incur costs between 1 and 3%. EPA’s own Notice acknowledges tha t in applying the adopted thresholds to determine economic achievability, it is relevant to look at “those airports that would incur costs under [the] proposal.”387 Here, among the 14 airports in the Tier One, EPA projects only seven would incur costs

– of these seven, two would incur compliance costs greater than 3% of operating revenues and four will incur costs between 1 and 3%. Thus, 29% of affected Tier One airports incur costs greater than three percent of operating revenues and 57% incur costs betwee n 1 and 3% of operating revenues. Response: EPA has always compared economic impacts not to the number of entities incurring costs under a rule, but the number of entities that are in - scope of the proposed rule. Very often in - scope facilities are not p rojected to incur compliance costs because they already meet the final rule’s standards prior to its issuance. Thus, excluding such facilities from the analysis would misrepresent the industry because it would not account for the existence of these facili ties that have demonstrated that they already economically achieved the standards. Therefore the appropriate denominator is the number of airports that are in - scope, not the number of airports that incur costs. In addition, the commenter’s quote is taken out of context. The statement quoted was taken from EPA’s evaluation of the potential impacts had EPA extended the 60 percent collection and treatment requirement to additional airports under the proposed option: Specifically, of those airports that wou ld incur costs under today’s proposal, 5 of the first 6 airports that immediately follow the top 14 by ADF usage would be projected to incur costs greater than 3 percent of revenues and therefore would incur a heavy economic burden. In addition, 29 of the 57 airports in all that follow the top 14 by ADF usage would be projected to incur costs over 3 percent of revenues. This confirms, in EPA’s view, that imposing the 60 percent requirement on only the top 14 airports under Option 3 is the appropriate cutoff point for determining economic achievability for this industry.346 The quote merely describes the additional impacts projected if the requirements for the 14 largest users of ADF are extended to the next 57 largest users of ADF. Nothing in this quote sugge sts that EPA believes the impact to the 14 largest airports should be evaluated separately from impacts to smaller airports as was implied by the commenter. Finally, for existing airports, the final rule only sets uniform requirements for airfield deicing and not for aircraft deicing. Thus the projected overall costs of the BAT portions of the rule are far less than projected at the time of proposal. Six of 198 airports (3 percent) are projected to incur costs between 1 percent and 3 percent of operating revenues, and 1 of 198 (0.5 percent) incur costs exceeding 3 percent of operating revenues. Only 37 airports are projected to incur any costs at all, because the remaining 161 airports already use the alternative deicing products for urea. E_REV_TEST - Economic analysis – revenue test Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 145 When proper methodology is applied (proper costs; revenue limited to aeronautical revenue), the Proposed Rule fails by a wider margin As demonstrated at length in Section VI , EPA’s cost estimates are off by a wide margin: actual costs imposed under this proposal would be much, much higher. This means any actual cost - revenue ratios also are much higher. EPA simply cannot make any determination of economic achievability based on the Airport Revenue Test unless it derives accurate cost estimates. Moreover, EPA uses an inappropriate denominator to calculate this ratio: total operating revenue should not be used. At a minimum, the denominator for calculation should be “aeronautical revenue;” more appropriately, it should be aeronautical revenue associated with deicing operations. These denominators will be much smaller than the total operating revenue value used in EPA’s calculation, again leading to much higher cost - revenue ratios. If EPA is to use this test, it must recalculate the ratios using accurate costs and a more appropriate measure of airport revenues. Response: EPA is responding to the commenter's specific comments regarding cost underestimation in the following response s: Comment code C_CDP_CAP response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 Excerpt 9; Comment code C_AFB_CAP response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 Excerpt 82; Comment code C_ADD_LAND response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 Excerpt 55; Comment code C_ADD_OTH response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 Excerpts 61 and 67; and Comment code C_ADD_OP response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 Excerpt 105. Second, the vast majority of the comments on cost associated with the final rule invol ved aircraft deicing discharge controls. However, the final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing dischargers. Therefore, such comments are not applicable to the BAT requirements of the final rule. Coll ection and treatment of ADF is required under New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), however using the ratio of compliance costs to revenues as a test of economic achievability is not relevant to, nor is it used for the evaluation of new sources, since n ew sources have no revenues. EPA provides an in - depth response concerning the use of aeronautical revenue as the denominator in the revenue test in comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1

– 132. E_REV_TEST - Economic analysis – revenue test Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 32347 Although the EPA has followed a “revenue test” of this NPRM, such an analysis is only significant when all costs are considered. We have great concerns about what hidden costs may not be taken into consideration by the EPA. Response: EPA’s analysis does appropriately consider all relevant costs to existing airports, as explained in section VI of the final rule preamble. The commenter has expressed only a general concern about hidden costs, and has not supplied any informati on or suggestions about specific costs that EPA should have considered but did not; therefore it is not possible to respond further to this comment. E_REV_TEST - Economic analysis – revenue test Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 132 The ratio of compliance costs to an airport’s total operating revenues is not a meaningful measure for airport financial impact analysis. Such a measure would be more appropriate if the comparison were between compliance costs and the airport’s aeronautical revenues specifically EPA does not have a particularly strong rationale for using 1% or 3% of total operating revenues as an indication that regulatory costs are problematic for airports. The stated rationale for using a revenue test of this sort rests on EPA’s Gu idelines for Preparing Economic Analyses and on analogizing from the Agency’s tests pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act (SBREFA) for a significant impact to a substantial number of small entities.98 • In fact, the proposed revenue tes t represents the second potential approach suggested in EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. The first approach suggested in the Guidelines is to assess “annualized compliance costs as a percentage of annual costs for the service,” using 1% as the threshold for significant burden.99 Thus, to be consistent with the Guidelines, perhaps EPA should compare an airport’s incremental increase in deicing cost due to the proposed rule against that airport’s baseline deicing cost. Has EPA done such an an alysis? What would it show? By what percentage does the proposed rule increase baseline deicing costs? • EPA’s rationale for extending the SBREFA impact thresholds for small entities (i.e., 1% of revenues denotes a potential impact, 3% of revenues denotes a likely significant impact) to large entities also is not convincing. EPA has applied these thresholds in countless previous regulatory impact analyses for small entities, but has rarely, before now, extended them also for application to large entities. W hy should EPA change and do this now? Response: See response to E REV TEST, comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 143 (In the final rule, EPA no longer cites, as it did at proposal, the RFA guidance for determining thresholds for the economic achievabilit y of the rule. EPA references other relevant guidance instead). The example cited by the commenter is taken directly from EPA’s Guidelines and actually reinforces EPA’s selection of the revenue test to use in evaluating the economic impact of the rule. T he Guidelines example cites a regulation on a single - purpose entity such as a publicly owned treatment works (POTW, that is, a sewage treatment plant); the plant’s only purpose is to treat sewage and EPA’s rule affects the cost of treating sewage. Here, the sole purpo se of an airport is to provide air transportation, not aircraft deicing operations. Deicing operations are performed as a necessary component of the airport’s provision of air transportation services. Thus, the relevant activity is the cost of providing air transportation services, not the deicing services; if aircraft do not fly, no deicing operations are performed and there is no need for EPA to set effluent guidelines and standards for deicing operations. For the same reason, EPA selected airport oper ating revenues instead of airport aeronautical revenues as the basis for the revenue test. Landside revenues raised through parking, retail, and food concessions are not designed to provide a revenue stream to support the provision of a different service or product, but instead allow airports to accumulate capital from non - airline sources. Thus the intent of these revenue348 streams is also to support the provision of air transportation services and is therefore a component of an airport’s resources relevant to the airport implementation of these effluent limitations guidelines. Of 191 in - scope airports that answered question B6 of the Section 308 Airport Deicing Survey Questionnaire, 68 percent use a compensatory or hybrid approach to financial management; a nd 60 percent of airports use a compensatory approach to rate setting for concession areas. As a standard airport management text states: “because total revenues are not constrained to the amount needed to break even, and because surplus revenues are not u sed to reduce airline rates and charges, compensatory airports may earn and retain a substantial surplus, which can later be used for capital development.”(Wells, A.T. 1996. Airport Planning and Management. 3 rd ed. New York: McGraw - Hill.) Furthermore, in practice, not all revenue accrued through compensatory rate setting on the landside is used to fund capital expenditures, 107 airports also indicated on the Section 308 survey that they use landside revenues to pay airside expenses. A review of airport fi nancial statements indicated that airports might use landside revenues to offset airside costs through a number of channels. EPA examined the airport rates and charges setting methodology at 5 large and 1 small hubs. At these airports, airline payments a re offset by a portion of airport income (including income from sources such as parking and concessions) in excess of airport operating costs. In addition to direct airline credits from airport income, accrued net revenues might find their way back to mee t airline or airside costs through a number of channels. Airport net income is typically deposited into a number of accounts, such as debt service, provide operating and maintenance reserves, renewal and replacement, development, and discretionary funds. In various financial statements (i.e., Wayne County Airport Authority, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport) it can be seen that these funds have been tapped to offset airline costs without increasing rates and charges. Similarly, in 2002 a uthorities at Boston’s Logan Airport covered an operating deficit by increasing parking rates rather than increasing airline rates and charges. Thus, the claim that aeronautical revenues are the appropriate reflection of airport resources to cover costs r esulting from this effluent guideline is not only contradicted by logic (i.e., if airport revenues from non aeronautical sources are not used for the airports’ mission of providing air transportation services, then what are they used for?), but by airport practice as well. E_REV_TEST - Economic analysis – revenue test Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 134 EPA should develop impact metrics that are illuminating with respect to serious and real potential impacts such as these, instead of metrics l ike the 1% and 3% thresholds that are transferred arbitrarily to airports from some other context. We believe that impact on landing fees and cost per enplaned passenger have promise as better metrics for evaluating airport impacts than those metrics that EPA is currently using. Both of these measures are commonly calculated by airports, and airports consider these measures when deciding whether or not to undertake activities that will increase airport costs. We must stop short of a full endorsement of thes e two measures, though, because we do not currently see a benchmark or threshold for either of these measures that can serve across different airports to consistently divide significant impacts from insignificant ones. An increase in landing fees that may be very harmful to one airport might have little impact at another. Airports’ competitive positions vary widely. ACI - NA would be willing to work with EPA in an attempt to develop thresholds associated with these two potential measures that could differenti ate significant from insignificant impacts. Response: EPA incorporated impacts to airport cost per enplaned passenger (CPEP) into the analyses performed for the final rule as sensitivity analysis. EPA disagrees that costs as a percent of landing fees o r CPEP is the appropriate primary measure of impacts of this rule because they dramatically understate an airport’s financial resources for responding to the effluent guideline. However, EPA’s financial assessment did not rely solely on the revenue test, b ut examined multiple indicators such as airports’ ability to incur debt, and349 impacts to airports’ ultimate community, the passengers that use the air transportation provided at the airport in the form of cost per enplaned passenger, as also suggested in th e Guidelines . The case for using total operating revenues as the primary measure of airport resources is stated more fully in EPA’s response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1

– 132. In addition, while the commenter proposes alternative measures to th ose used by EPA, they also state that there are no clear thresholds for those measures to determine the significance of economic impacts; this is the issue commenters found with EPA’s use of the revenue test. Thus, the problem facing both EPA in projectin g economic impacts and industry in commenting on those projections is not the method used to measure the impacts; rather it is the lack of clearly defined thresholds for determining the severity of impacts. All measures examined by EPA and suggested by in dustry are variations on the same theme (the ratio of compliance costs to some measure of airport’s financial resources to pay those costs), but despite criticism of EPA’s thresholds, industry is no better able to suggest what thresholds might be used to d etermine economic achievability. Finally, during development of the proposed rule, EPA solicited assistance from stakeholders (including ACI - NA) in developing or finding appropriate measures of economic achievability, however, EPA never received any sugges tions. See DCN AD01341. E_REV_TEST - Economic analysis – revenue test Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 135 If EPA is going to continue to use a comparison between an airport’s annualized ELG costs and the airport’s annual revenues as an economic impact metric, we strongly suggest that revenues in the denominator of this comparison be defined as aeronautical rev enues only. Few airports will look beyond aeronautical revenues as a source for paying airfield costs such as deicing compliance costs. The airports using “mixed” or “hybrid” approaches financial management, and even the few airports that use the “residual ” approach will treat airfield operations (including deicing) as an explicit cost center, and will set airline fees such that airfield revenues cover airfield costs. EPA believes for the year 2004 that at least 66% of all airports that responded to the Age ncy’s survey treated airfield operations as an explicit cost center in this manner.103 [Footnote 103: See pages 2 - 22 through 2 - 24 of the Economic Analysis. The 66% figure counts only the 78 (weighted) airports using a compensatory approach and the 62 of th e73 airports with a mixed approach that determine airline fees for airfield operations based on the actual cost of running these areas. The 66% figure for 2004 would be higher if some of the airports using “other” funding methods (see Table 2 - 12 of the Eco nomic Analysis) also treated airfield operations as an explicit cost center.] This percentage has undoubtedly increased in recent years as new agreements have been negotiated in a context where airports are much more credit - worthy than airlines.104 [Footno te 104: Tom Browne, Trillion Aviation, “Airport Finance 101” Presentation at the ATA/ACI - NA Deicing Management Conference, July 25, 2008.] All airports that treat airfield operations as a cost center will collect fees from airfield users (mostly airlines, but also cargo and other users) sufficient to cover these costs. Only those few residual approach airports could be subsidized by revenues from non - airfield sources. An airport’s non - airfield revenues are irrelevant in this context. In evaluating the degre e to which an airfield cost increase (e.g., for deicing compliance) will affect the economics of an airport, EPA should compare this cost against the airport’s aeronautical revenues, not the airport’s total revenues. We believe that this measure

– annualiz ed compliance costs as a percentage of aeronautical revenues

– would be a much better screening measure for economic impacts than the comparison against total airport revenues that EPA has adopted. Response: See response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1 240.1

– 132.350 E_SALES_TEST - Economic analysis – sales test Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 137 EPA Concedes that the Sales Test, by Definition, Cannot Be a Rational Basis for Determining Economic Achievability as to Airlines EPA affirms unequivocally that it “evaluated the economic impacts on airlines using essentially the same test and impact thres holds as it did for airports.”358 “EPA based its evaluation of impacts on operating revenues . . . This essentially applies the same standards to for - profit entities as it does to non - profits [sic] organizations and government entities.”359 In fact, EPA u sed exactly the same test and thresholds to evaluate impacts to airlines as it did to evaluate impacts to airports.360 Yet, EPA in explaining its application of the test to airports (referred to as the Revenue Test in that context), EPA explains: Thus, the impact of compliance costs resulting from an effluent guideline on airport income is not equivalent to that of a for - profit private sector business, nor can it be analyzed in the same manner using the same benchmarks.361 If it is not possible to analyze t he economic impacts on public sector entities (like airports) “in the same manner using the same benchmarks” that are used to analyze impacts on for - profit private sector businesses (like airlines), it is not possible to analyze airlines using “the same te st and impact thresholds” that are used for airports. EPA has encapsulated why, by definition, the Airline Sales Test cannot be a rational basis for determining the economic achievability of the Proposed Rule. Indeed, EPA notes Airborne Airpark “is private ly owned and is a private use facility; the revenue test would not be appropriate for this airport.”362 Response: This comment has not accounted for the fact that EPA presented three different analyses of impacts to airlines, the ratio of compliance cos ts to: operating revenues, operating profit and net income. The latter two measures are most appropriate for the analysis of for - profit entities, but cannot be used when baseline operating profit or net income is negative. The appropriate threshold for t hese tests is that the airline is projected to close if incremental compliance costs exceed 100 percent of operating profit or net income. Because so many airlines had negative operating profit (34 percent of airlines with available financial data) and/or net income (40 percent of airlines with available financial data), EPA also presented an analysis using operating revenue. This analysis merely demonstrated that for the vast majority of airlines with financial data available, projected compliance costs were less than one percent of operating revenues. EPA also notes that assessing impacts on entities that will be only secondarily affected by an effluent guidelines rulemaking is not usually required to determine whether the rule is economically achievab le. Customarily EPA assesses economic achievability only with respect to the entities that are directly required by the regulation to take action . Hence, EPA has analyzed economic impacts on only those airlines that are permittees at an in - scope airport. EPA has performed this analysis for the final rule and it is included in Section 5.7 of the Economic Analysis for Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category ( EPA 821 - R - 12 - 004 ). E_SALES_TEST - Economic analysis – sales test Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 138 EPA Itself Affirms that the Airline Sales Test Cannot Determine Economic Achievability EPA unequivocally affirms the “sales test” cannot determine economic achievability for airlines. The Agency s tates: [A]lthough compliance costs might represent a small percentage of operating revenues, this does not determine financial affordability when either an airline’s operating profits or net income is negative.351 The question is: what level of compliance cos ts is affordable if an entity is losing money? That is not a question that can be answered using standard tests of economic achievability. 363 EPA’s own analysis concludes that for the period evaluated, it found 49 to 55% of airlines did not have operating profits or positive net income.364 EPA thus unambiguously acknowledges that the “sales test” analysis cannot determine economic achievability with respect to 49 - 55% of airlines. The analysis is not internally consistent. EPA adopted the sales test analysi s for all airlines because it is a test that can be applied to all airlines (because they all have operating revenues). However, EPA rejected a comparison of compliance costs to either profits or net income apply for the very same reason: it is meaningless for about half the airline industry. In fact, EPA affirms the “results” of its analysis “do not measure affordability based on a relatively well defined outcome using a clearcut decision criterion, but rather attempt to determine if compliance costs are a ffordable in the sense that they are ‘small’ relative to airline income.” 365 In acknowledging these limitations, EPA effectively concedes the Airline Sales Test does not provide the basis for reasoned decision making. Response: See Response to Comment E SALES TEST EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1

– 137. (above) E_SALES_TEST - Economic analysis – sales test Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 139 A “Sales Test” Is Applied to Airlines Such That It Measured When the specific “sense” of affordability EPA yields from this test is critically evaluated, it is even more apparent that the test cannot form the basis of any reasoned decision. EPA describes t he thresholds for affordability it applied as follows. Generally, if costs are greater than 1% for some firms, but below that threshold for most, the regulation “may be considered affordable;” when costs exceed 3% for any given entity, the regulation is co nsidered to “place a heavy burden” on the entity.366 Airline industry operating revenues in 2004, 2005 and 2006 (the three years evaluated by EPA) were $115.9, $131.5, and $150.8 billion367 respectively

– resulting in an average annual operating revenue ov er those years of $136.7 billion (in 2006$).368 [FOOTNOTE:367 Source: ATA Annual reports for 2004, 2005 and 2006, available here: http://www.airlines.org/economics/review_and_outlook/annual+reports.htm.] [FOOTNOTE:368 Calculated using Bureau of Labor Stati stics’ average annual Consumer Price Index values for 2004, 2005 and 2006 (i.e., 188.9, 195.3 and 201.6, respectively). BLS CPI values available here: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt).] Under EPA’s analysis the 1% and 3% thresholds wil l not be exceeded until compliance costs are $1.4 and $4.1 billion, respectively. EPA estimates the total COD load to the environment associated with ADF to be 128.4 369 and 12.7 million lbs. COD and 4.7 million lbs. ammonia from urea, for a total of 145.8 million lbs. of pollutants. Thus, if costs under this rule were $4.1 billion, every pound of COD and ammonia could be removed at a cost of about $28.00 per lb. This is within the range of costs for other ELGs EPA cites in the Notice, the highest being $38 .83 per lb. for the Waste Combustors rule.370 In short, because airline industry operating revenues are large, the Airline Sales Test could be used to justify any measures EPA may propose

– a test that can be used to justify any outcome is not properly a t est. It is wrong to apply such a “test” to any industry, but it is clearly not possible to justify its application to this industry, in which

– as EPA acknowledges

– operating revenues are (chronically) insufficient to cover operating expenses. Response: First, although the commenter uses the calculation of a conceptual cost - effectiveness value to make his/her point, the commenter’s key point here is that it is inappropriate to apply the sales test to the airline industry. For this, see Response to Comm ent E SALES TEST EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1

– 137. (above)352 Second, EPA did not base its determination that the proposed rule was economically achievable on the airline sales test. In addition, while EPA considers cost effectiveness as one piece of inform ation among many in selecting an option as a basis for a rule, it is required under the Clean Water Act to base the rule on economic achievability, not cost - effectiveness. Hence the purported link between the airline sales test and cost - effectiveness sugg ested in this comment is irrelevant to EPA’s decision - making process. Finally, the final rule does not establish uniform requirements to control aircraft deicing discharges. Such requirements will continue to be established on a BPJ, site - specific basis. Therefore, none of the specific numbers in this comment reflect the requirements of the final rule. See the final preamble. E_SALES_TEST - Economic analysis – sales test Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 140 EPA Has Failed to Provide Any Relev ant Basis for Adopting the Thresholds of Significance Relevant in this Rulemaking As detailed below in Section XI, EPA has failed to provide any reasoned basis for adopting the thresholds of significance relevant to applying the “sales test” to airports (t ermed the “revenue test” in that context). Moreover, EPA has failed to explain why thresholds of significance that apply to airports would also reasonably apply to airlines. Thus, even if the “sales test” could be applied to airlines, EPA has failed to pro vide any reasoned justification for applying these thresholds for airlines. Response: For EPA’s response to comments on the application of the revenue test to airports, see response to comments EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1

– 143, EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240. 1

– 132, and EPA HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1

– 134. For EPA’s response to comments on the application of the revenue test to airlines, see response to comments E SALES TEST EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1

– 137 . (above) EA_GEN - EA analysis – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1169 - 5 Additional EPA regulations should address the dangers and effects of atmospheric pollution by ADFs and by - products, including on - site health of airport/airline workers. Response: Addressing the dangers and effects of atmospheric pollution by ADFs and by - products, including on - site health of airport/airline workers is beyond the scope of this rule., . However, EPA did find 31 articles describing complaints of odors emanating from water bodies that were downst ream of airport deicing operations. 14 of these articles found a definitive link between the odors and the deicing activities. Implementation of the final airport deicing ELG, which will reduce the loading of runway deicing chemicals into water bodies, wil l help to mitigate any reported odor impacts. EA_GEN - EA analysis – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1193.1 - 2 This product substitution of urea is obviously superior to only end of pipe collection methods, but the substances replacing the urea, primarily potassium acetate, sodium formate and sodium acetate, while less toxic, have by no means been deemed safe for the environment, especially at the levels at which they may353 eventually be applied

– 71 million pounds annually (Section V(3)( b)). Potassium and Sodium Acetate both have the potential to cause oxygen depletion in streams, rivers, and lakes, and Potassium Acetate (currently applied by 67% of U.S. airports) may be toxic to aquatic organisms, although no EPA standards have been esta blished 1,2. [Footnote 1: Corsi, S.R., et al., Aquatic Toxicity of Airfield Pavement Deicer Materials and Implications for Airport Runoff. Environmental Science & Technology, 2008. 43(1): p. 40 - 46., Footnote 2: Final Report Environmental Stewardship Practi ces, Procedures, and Policies for Highway Construction and Maintenance, in NCHRP Project 25 - 25 (04). November 2005, Center for Environmental Excellence. p. Chapter 8.1.] Therefore, these alternatives should still be designated as chemical waste, or effluen t, and under the BAT standards explained in Section 306(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1972, EPA is to require “the greatest degree of effluent reduction which...[is] achievable through application of the best available demonstrated control techn ology.” Response: EPA is aware that runway deicing substances mix with snow melt and stormwater runoff and may become point source discharges to waters of the United States. However, the data and information available to EPA shows that this is only a sma ll fraction of the wastewater contamination from all deicing/anti - icing activities at an airport. Regardless, in developing effluent limitation guidelines, EPA is required by the Clean Water Act to determine the best available control technology that is ec onomically achievable (BAT) by the dischargers. In analyzing potential control technologies for runway discharges, EPA determined there were no other technologies that met this statutory standard, other than product replacement. Therefore, product substitu tion (the use of potassium acetate, sodium formate and sodium acetate and other less toxic runway deicing substitutes, other than urea), was determined to be BAT, BADCT for this regulation. Further, EPA’s data show that this approach, while not eliminating these discharges, will lead to significant reductions in ammonia and COD. With the substitution to less toxic alternatives, EPA believes environment improvements can be achieved while still allowing the use of runway deicers, and without compromising air transportation safety. EPA was also aware of the potential environmental impacts of alternative airport deicing/anti - icing formulations, including those used on runways, as well as aircraft, while preparing the rule. The paper cited by the commenter in En vironmental Science and Technology, 2009; 43:1, 40 - 46, is a paper written by S. Corsi of the USGS. This paper was carefully evaluated by EPA and is a part of the record of support for the environmental assessment for the rule along with other similar studi es and findings. Although potassium acetate can degrade to form COD and may contain some additives in it that may be toxic, the COD and toxicity are far less than that generated by urea. EPA did conduct an evaluation of all the alternatives to urea and con cluded that the alternative deicers would result in an overall reduction of environmental impacts. EPA also consulted with S. Corsi on his research and findings. The data and information supporting these evaluations can be found in the Environmental Impac t and Benefit Assessment (PDF) (EPA - 821 - R - 09 - 003, July 2009). EA_GEN - EA analysis – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1199 - 4 The need to account for benefits to downstream water suppliers in the analysis of reduced ADF discharges. The analysis discussed in Section 4.4.3 of the Environmental Impact and Benefit Assessment provides only a brief high - level summary of benefits to groundwater source protection. The analysis should include the benefits of reduced ADF discharges to public wate r supply systems with surface water intakes downstream of Airport outfall(s). Response: EPA is aware that in site - specific circumstances, such as with the Fairfax County Water Authority in354 Fairfax Virginia, and possibly elsewhere, additional benefits of controlling airport deicing discharges may accrue such as improving surface water drinking water quality and preventing glycol - imposed odor and taste problems. EPA's environmental assessment did examine the number of public drinking water intakes that were downstream of airport deicing discharges and factored this, qualitatively, into its analysis. EPA could not find adequate data to provide a more detailed, quantitative analysis of the benefits of reducing deicing discharges on these important water uses. Regardless, EPA concludes that one of the benefits of the airfield deicing discharge controls will be the reduction of drinking water quality issues and improved surface water quality, primarily due to reductions in loadings of glycol wastes into the envi ronment. Where other site - specific water quality concerns still arise, these can be dealt with through permit - specific water quality - based limits and restrictions based on NPDES permit writers best professional judgment (BPJ) on a case - by - case basis. EA_GEN - EA analysis – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1217.2 - 2 The EPA proposed list for Pollutants of Concern does not include chemicals for evaluation of pavement deicer material impact except for urea - and glycol - based deicers. Po tassium, acetate and formate are three of the primary chemicals in pavement deicers other than urea - and glycol - based deicers. Potassium, acetate and formate are not on the list for Pollutants of Concern. These chemicals all meet the four criteria for incl usion on this list (section 7.2 in EPA 821 - R - 09 - 004, 2009). They are present in storm water due to deicers; are discharged in amounts greater than what can be considered “relatively small amounts”; are used in large quantity at many airports and therefore are likely to be present in the effluent from many airports; and there are established analytical techniques for the measurement of their concentration. 3 Acetate and formate were not included on the monitoring list during the EPA studies leading up to the proposed rule. Potassium was only included in monitoring for the preliminary study published in 2000 (EPA - 821 - R - 00 - 016), but then dropped from the list in subsequent monitoring. Elevated levels of potassium were observed in results from the preliminary s tudy. Elevated Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) with no glycol detections in EPA monitoring data (Table 6 - 4, EPA 821 - R - 09 - 004, 2009) indicates the likely influence of pavement deicer chemicals, but sufficient analytical analyses (acetate and formate) were not conducted to fully assess this. Potassium, acetate, and formate would all be present in collected wastewater at airports that use deicers with these components. The current proposed rule is based upon treatment of this collected wastewater which would be evaluated by COD reduction. The source of COD will not be sufficiently characterized without including acetate and formate along with glycols in the monitoring parameters and Pollutants of Concern. [Reference listed: Corsi, S.R., Geis, S.W., Bowman, G., Fa iley, G.G., and Rutter, T.D, 2009, Aquatic Toxicity of Airfield - Pavement Deicer Material and Implications for Airport Runoff, Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 43, pp. 40 - 46.] Response: In the airport deicing ELG, EPA is not basing the rule on capture and collection of airfield pavement deicing chemicals since EPA is not aware of any collection and treatment technology that is readily available or economically achievable. This would apply to any type of airfield pavement deicing chemical, be is urea, glycol, potassium acetate or any other available substitutes. Rather, the primary environmental concern EPA has identified with airfield pavement deicers, is the generation and discharge of ammonia, a highly toxic compound to aquatic life, typically formed from the degradation of urea - based pavement deicers. Therefore, to control the potentially toxic effects of ammonia from pavement deicing, the final rule requires product substitution for urea - containing pavement deicers. The rule requires a signed certification, by the responsible officer for the deicing operations at the airport, that pavement deicers containing urea are not being used. As an alternative to this BAT certification/product substitution approach, EPA promulgated a numeric limit of 14 .7 mg/L daily maximum of ammonia as nitrogen that will effectively limit the discharge of ammonia to receiving waters regardless of the type of pavement355 deicing chemicals used. EPA believes that since economically achievable collection and treatment techno logy is not available for pavement deicers, the most appropriate approach to control this pollution source is through product substitution, using less, or non - toxic substitutes such as potassium acetate, sodium acetate or sodium formate. EPA has determined that these substitutes are economically achievable for the industry, and EPA has no data indicating that these alternatives are creating environmental problems in water bodies near airfields. EPA notes, however, that is did estimate COD reductions that w ill result from the promulgated airfield deicing discharge controls in addition to reductions in ammonia. COD measures oxygen demand from all chemicals that can be oxidized. This includes potassium acetate, sodium acetate and sodium formate. As shown in t he TDD, substitution of urea containing pavement deicers also results in significant COD reductions. EA_GEN - EA analysis – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1222.1 - 3 EPA should also be mindful of the potential unintended consequence s of groundwater aquifer contamination due to ADF. Although there is no known documentation of deicing chemicals contaminating groundwater sources, the long term impacts of ADF to groundwater is not known as the process of groundwater contamination may tak e decades. Therefore practicing pollution prevention by minimizing ADF contamination at the source is as important for protecting our ground water resources as it is for surface water sources. Response: EPA understands that ground water contamination can occur if pollutants used on the surface of the land are not handled properly, and this is one benefit of the ELG. Requiring the use of alternative runway anti icing and deicing chemicals should help to reduce groundwater contamination. EA_GEN - EA analys is – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1223.1 - 2 The effect of various aircraft deicing fluids on water quality and aquatic life is well documented. Glycols contained in aircraft deicing fluids have a large biochemical oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand.1 [FOOTNOTE: 1 .Corsi, Steven R., et al, Characterization of Aircraft Deicer and Anti - Icer Components and Toxicity in Airport Snowbanks and Snowmelt Runoff Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 3195 - 3202, at 3195] Through the biodegradati on process, glycols deplete oxygen in water bodies, depriving aquatic organisms of the oxygen they need to survive.2 [FOOTNOTE: 2 (Richardson, David C., "Aircraft Deicing Fluid: The Recycling Solution" Stormwater March/April 2008, 88 - 94, at 88] The chemica ls contained in aircraft deicing fluids have the potential to be toxic to various aquatic plants and animals.3 [FOOTNOTE: 3 Corsi et. al supra note 1 at 3196] One glycol commonly used in airplane deicing fluids is ethylene glycol, which "is toxic to mammal s, including humans, and can cause neurological, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal problems, severe birth defects, and death."4 [FOOTNOTE: 4 Davis, Wendy B. and Rebecca Clarke, "Hot Air: Undue Judicial Deference to Federal Aviation Administration Expert ise in Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Aviation" 69 J. Air L. & Com. 709, 733 (2004).] Additionally, ethylene glycol is classified as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and as a hazardous substance under the Comprehensive Environmenta l Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.5 [FOOTNOTE: 5 Switzenbaum et al., Univ of Mass./Amherst, Publ'n No. 173, Workshop: Best Management Practices for Airport Deicing Stormwater at 8 (1999), available at http://www.umass.edu/tei/wrrc/WRRC2004/pdf/Sw itz173.pdf.)]356 Response: EPA agrees, and such effects are described in the environmental assessment. While EPA is aware of these documented impacts, for the reasons described in the preamble, the final rule does not establish requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing airports. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site spe cific BPJ basis. EPA notes that this does not mean there will be no requirements for these airports. Rather, it means the technology - based requirements will be determined for each site rather than nationally. In addition, permitting authorities will also be able to concurrently consider additional controls necessary for a specific site related to water quality impacts. EA_GEN - EA analysis – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1223.1 - 4 The EPA's own studies have found that aircraft dei cing fluids have caused (1) Aquatic life effects, such as fish kills, elimination of all aquatic life, bacterial growth, concerns with shrimp farming; (2) Aesthetic effects, such as odors and foaming ; (3) Effects on the quality of receiving waters, such a s exceeding water quality standards; and (4) Effects on water supplies." 7 Response: See response to EA_GEN - EA: Commenter EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1223.1 - 2 (above) EA_GEN - EA analysis – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 129 EP A’s analysis of environmental benefits is flawed. As outlined above, key building blocks for this analysis (e.g., waste loads, effectiveness of technologies, derivation of effluent limits) are each flawed, leading to inaccurate assessment. Moreover, EPA ap pears to “double count” removal of COD and nitrogen related to substitution of urea and does not appear to add in the nitrogen created by the operation of its selected model ADF treatment technology. These defects must be eliminated in order to perform an accurate assessment of the Proposed Rule’s environmental benefits. In addition, EPA’s selection of COD as the pollutant of concern results in overestimation of benefits. Because the Agency concludes that “[t]he average COD/BOD5 ratio was 1.67,”326 it appea rs that its choice of COD over BOD results in an overestimation of environmental benefits related to ADF removal that is an additional 67% too high. Finally, the benefits allocated to the reduction in ADF discharges and to PDF discharges must be computed a nd applied separately. Unlike most ELGs, the Proposed Rule contains a bright line between its model technologies for the control of ADF and those for PDF. Because these technologies are not mutually dependent, the costs of each technology must be assessed against the backdrop solely of that technology’s environmental benefits. Allowing ADF treatment costs to be justified on the back of large and far cheaper pollutant reductions (in terms of costs/pound of pollutants removed, not absolute costs) resulting fr om the proposed effective ban on urea is an evasion that the statute does not allow. EPA must evaluate the benefits and the costs of each model technology on its own merits, and not in the apples - and oranges aggregate currently employed. Response: The fi nal rule does not establish aircraft deicing discharge requirements for existing airports. The reductions associated with this final rule reflect the final rule requirements for airfield deicing discharges. With respect to reduction estimates for COD, EPA ’s rationale for selecting COD is explained in the final preamble. EPA disagrees that it overestimates oxygen demand by using COD. BOD and COD are both357 accepted measures of oxygen demand. Furthermore, with respect to EPA’s estimates of COD reductions as sociated with today’s airfield deicing discharge requirements, even if EPA had used BOD instead of COD, the rule would result in significant reductions in oxygen demand at low cost . Finally, for today’s final airport deicing rule, EPA conducted primaril y a qualitative analysis of the potential environmental benefits. This included the benefits of the proposed rule on 303(d) listed waters, drinking water aquifers, drinking water intakes, federal lands and park lands. Any alleged flaws, even if they existe d as the commenter claims, would not impact this portion of the benefits analysis. The elimination of urea will reduce impacts due to COD, as well as reduce, if not eliminate, toxicity due to ammonia when urea degrades in the environment. These are the two distinct benefits from the elimination of the use of urea that EPA assessed. EA_GEN - EA analysis – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 9 Page 44686, Section VII.A.1. At certain airports, the historic use of glycol based deicers a nd the lack of collection have led to significant groundwater contamination in the form of glycol in the soil and the fill under the airfield. This long - term contamination results in year round discharges of contaminated storm and groundwater. The fact tha t ADF may be discharged from airports during the non - deicing season and during non - storm events should be evaluated by EPA and included in this section. Attached to these comments is data, depicting the characteristics of non - deicing discharges associated with the operations of Pittsburgh International Airport. The data is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The attached data is limited to the previous year. Additional data is available for public review. Response: EPA understands that ground water contaminatio n can occur if pollutants used on the surface of the land are not handled properly, and this is one benefit of the final ELG. Requiring substitute pavement anti icers and deicers will help to reduce ground water contamination. See response to EA_GEN - EA : Commenter EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1223.1 - 2 (above) EA_GEN - EA analysis – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 20 Page 44692, Section VII.E. EPA states that the ELG will result in a 22% reduction in COD discharged to receiving streams. Although there is reported to be a 22% reduction in the COD load, it may not be enough of a reduction to eliminate impacts to receivin g streams. In addition, the 22% is misleading in that this reduction will take place mainly at the 7 airports that will have to install deicing pads to achieve 60% collection. Very little COD will be removed at the majority of the airports in the country a nd little to no improvement to receiving streams will be achieved by the proposed ELG. Response: Remediating water quality problems in water bodies is not the objective of ELGs under the Clean Water Act. See Weyerhauser v. Costle , 590 F.2d 1011, 1042 - 4 3 (D.C. Cir. 1975)(ELGs are to be established without regard to effects on water quality). The objective of ELGs is to reduce pollutant loadings to the environment using the best performing technology that is economically achievable. Where water quality problems from deicing discharges still exist after imposition of the BAT at a particular airport, these problems are best resolved through the imposition of site - specific water quality - based permit limits under section 301(b)(1)(C) in the airports' Nation al Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.358 See response to EA_GEN - EA: Commenter EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1223.1

– 2. (above) EA_GEN - EA analysis – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 31 Page 44708, Section X. A. The impacts listed by EPA to receiving streams at airports will not be corrected by the proposed ELG. Removing only 20% of the pollutant load at the majority of the airports will not lead to any improvement in the receiving streams. Collection and removal of up to 60% of ADF for several years at certain airports has not eliminated impacts to receiving streams (See comment number 1). So a level of 20% certainly would not alleviate impacts. Response: Remediating water quality problems in water bodies is not the objective of ELGs under the Clean Water Act. The objective of ELGs is to reduce pollutant loadings to the environment using the best performing technology that is affordable. Where water quality problems from deicing discharges still exist after imposition of the BAT at a particular airport, these problems are best resolved through the imposition of site - specific water quality - based permit limits in the airports' National Pollutant Discharge Elim ination System (NPDES) permits. See response to EA_GEN - EA: Commenter EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1223.1 - 2 (above) EA_GEN - EA analysis – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 33 Page 44716, §449.10 (b) Table I. The proposed effluent limits are not sufficient to eliminate impacts to receiving streams. Page 44717, §449.10 (c) Table II. The proposed effluent limits are not sufficient to eliminate impacts to receiving streams. Response: Remediating water quality problems in water bodies is not the objective of ELGs under the Clean Water Act. The objective of ELGs is to reduce pollutant loadings to the environment using the best performing technology that is affordable. Where water quality problems from deicing discharges still exist afte r imposition of the BAT at a particular airport, these problems are best resolved through the imposition of site - specific water quality - based permit limits in the airports' National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. See response to EA_GEN - EA: Commenter EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1223.1 - 2 (above) EA_GEN - EA analysis – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 39 Page 5 - 4, Section 5.1.1.3. It should be noted in this section that although no deicing typically occurs i n June, July, and August, that discharges of ADF contaminated storm water may occur due to contamination of facility soils and/or groundwater. Glycol may be detected in storm water and ground water discharges year round.359 Response: EPA recognizes that gro und water contamination is one potential impact of the uncontrolled use of aircraft deicing and anti - icing chemicals. EPA acknowledges, based on studies it has reviewed, that deicing chemicals can saturate soils and be released and discharged during rain e vents even during the spring or summer when active deicing is not occurring. See response to EA_GEN - EA: Commenter EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1223.1 - 2 EA_GEN - EA analysis – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 43 Page 7 - 10, Section 7 .4. EPA states that it based the selection of regulated pollutants on the documented environmental impacts from airport deicing runoff. EPA should identify the specific impacts that were evaluated. Response: See the final TDD for a discussion of EPA’s cr iteria for selection of regulated pollutants in the final rule. The specific environmental impacts that were evaluated from the discharge of deicing fluids to the environment were documented in the Environmental Impact and Benefit Assessment for the propos ed rule (EPA - 821 - R - 09 - 003, July 2009) . This document is part of the record for the proposed rule and was posted on the EPA website when the proposal was published. EA_GEN - EA analysis – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 20 In a ddition, the prospective environmental benefits from the collection of runoff from defrosting operations are insignificant. As EPA has noted previously, “These (defrosting) operations are not likely to significantly impact the surrounding environment (or p ublicly owned treatment works (POTW)) because only a small amount, if any, of spent deicing fluid enters the environment, and pollutant loadings from these airports would be negligible.”25 [Footnote 25: See U.S. EPA, Preliminary Data Summary Airport Deicin g Operations (Revised) at 4 - 17 (August 2000).] Response: The final rule did not establish requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing airports. The final rule does establish requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at new airports. These requirements apply to new airports in certain geographic locations only. As explained in the preamble, EPA concludes these locations will perform significant deicing rather than defrost deicing. EA_GEN - EA analysis – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 87 We believe that the proposed Airport Deicing ELG would provide only modest water quality benefits, and that the monetized value of the rule’s benefits would fall very far short of the rule’s costs. We believe that an enviro nmental assessment and a benefits analysis would make these points clear, and that this information would likely affect both the Agency’s decision - making about this regulation and the public’s comments on it. We believe the proposed regulation will provide very limited environmental benefits for several reasons: • There are minimal quantities of priority (toxic) pollutants at issue in airport deicing360 effluents and limited quantities of nutrients. EPA’s concern really only focuses on oxygen demand; • Many ai rport discharges are to waters offering very high dilution and little concern about oxygen demanding pollutant loads; • Deicing discharges occur largely during winter months, when dilution is particularly high and very limited beneficial uses are being mad e of receiving waters (i.e., no swimming, little fishing and boating); • Deicing discharges are already being managed and will be managed as necessary to meet receiving water quality needs, pursuant to stormwater permits and existing and planned TMDLs. A r ecent ACRP study estimates that 88% of all aircraft deicer usage now occurs at airports at which the applicable NPDES permits already prohibit any discharge that causes or contributes to a violation of ambient water quality standards;67 • Note all the vari ous ways that we have discussed where in the current analysis EPA overestimates the load reductions likely to be achieved by the ELG (e.g., current deicer usage is greatly overestimated, inaccurate assumption that all pavement deicer used reaches surface w aters, inaccurate assumption to the effect that all ADF available for collection that is not collected will reach surface waters, etc.) EPA must estimate loads and load reductions in a more accurate manner when doing the eventual environmental assessment a nd benefits analysis. Response: Remediating water quality problems in water bodies is not the objective of ELGs under the Clean Water Act. The objective of ELGs is to reduce pollutant loadings to the environment using the best performing technology that i s economically achievable. Where water quality problems from deicing discharges still exist after imposition of the BAT at a particular airport, these problems are best resolved through the imposition of site - specific water quality - based permit limits in t he airports' National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Additionally, for the reasons explained in the final preamble, the final rule does not establish aircraft deicing discharge requirements for existing airports. Rather, the reduc tions associated with this final rule reflect the final rule requirements for airfield deicing discharges. EA_GEN - EA analysis – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1243 - 1 The documentation for the ELG does not include information on the potential effects of pavement deicer runoff in receiving waters other than urea. While removal of urea as a widespread option for use as a pavement deicer maybe warranted due to environmental impact, data on the environmental impact of the alternative for mulations are not presented. An evaluation of alternative deicers would be necessary to determine whether replacement of urea by these alternative deicers would result in a reduction of environmental impact or merely changing the pollutant. Response: EPA did conduct a review of the alternative airport pavement deicing chemicals, and presented this information in the Environmental Impact and Benefit Assessment for the proposed ELG. See http://www.epa.gov/guide/airport/Airport_EIB_Proposed_2009.pdf. This rev iew looked at the ecological impact, the human health toxicity -- cancer and non - cancer effects, the fate and transport, and the aquatic resource use impacts of the various alternative deicing chemicals, both those used on aircraft as well as on airport pa vement. This included, among others, the chemicals acetate, formate, potassium, sodium, the different glycols, urea, and several common additives. EPA had full benefit of this information in making its decisions on the use of alternative pavement deicing c hemicals to achieve BAT and NSPS.361 EA_GEN - EA analysis – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1243 - 2 The EPA proposed list for Pollutants of Concern does not include chemicals for evaluation of pavement deicer material impact except for ur ea - and glycol - based deicers. Potassium, acetate and formate are three of the primary chemicals in pavement deicers other than urea - and glycol - based deicers. Potassium, acetate and formate are not on the list for Pollutants of Concern. These chemicals all meet the four criteria for inclusion on this list (section 7.2 in EPA821 - R - 09 - 004, 2009). They are present in storm water due to deicers; are discharged in amounts greater than what can be considered "relatively small amounts"; are used in large quantity a t many airports and therefore are likely to be present in the effluent from many airports; and there are established analytical techniques for the measurement of their concentration. Response: In developing effluent limitations guidelines, EPA is required by the Clean Water Act to determine the best available control technology economically achievable (BAT) or best available demonstrated control technology (NSPS) by the dischargers. In analyzing potential control technologies for runway discharges, EPA det ermined there were no other technologies that met this statutory standard, other than product replacement. Therefore, the use of potassium acetate, sodium formate and sodium acetate and other less toxic runway deicing substitutes, other than urea, is deeme d BAT/BADCT for this regulation. With the substitution of less toxic alternatives, EPA believes environmental improvements can be achieved while still allowing the use of runway deicers, and without compromising air transportation safety. Also see response to EA_GEN EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1217.2

– 2 and EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1

– 129. EA_GEN - EA analysis – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1243 - 3 Acetate and formate were not included on the monitoring list during the EPA studies leading up to the proposed rule. Potassium was only included in monitoring for the preliminary study published in 2000 (EPA - 821 - R - 00 - 016), but then dropped from the list in subsequent monitoring. Elevated levels of potassium were observed in results from the preli minary study. Elevated Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) with no glycol detections in EPA monitoring data (Table 6 - 4, EPA 821 - R - 09 - 004, 2009) indicates the likely influence of pavement deicer chemicals, but sufficient analytical analyses (acetate and formate) w ere not conducted to fully assess this. Response: EPA is aware that alternative runway deicing substances may mix with snow melt and stormwater runoff and may become point source discharges to waters of the United States. In developing effluent limitatio ns guidelines and new source performance standards (NSPS), EPA is required by the Clean Water Act to determine the best available control technology that is economically achievable (BAT) or best available demonstrated control technology by the dischargers. In analyzing potential control technologies for runway discharges, EPA determined there were no technologies that met this statutory standard, other than product substitution. Therefore, the use of potassium acetate, sodium formate and sodium acetate and other less toxic runway deicing substitutes, other than urea, is deemed BAT/BADCT for this regulation. With the substitution to less toxic alternatives, EPA believes environment improvements can be achieved while still allowing the use of runway deicers, a nd without compromising air transportation safety.362 Also see response to EA_GEN EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1217.2

– 2 and EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1

– 129. EA_GEN - EA analysis – general comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 17 It should be noted th at recent research conducted by the United States Geological Survey indicates potassium acetate maybe harmful to aquatic organisms. Response: EPA is aware that alternative runway deicing substances may mix with snow melt and stormwater runoff and may beco me point source discharges that enter waters of the United States. In developing effluent limitation guidelines and standards, EPA is required by the Clean Water Act to determine the best available control technology that is economically achievable (BAT) or best available demonstrated control technology by the dischargers. In analyzing potential control technologies for runway discharges, EPA determined there were no technologies that met this statutory standard, other than product substitution. Therefore, the use of potassium acetate, sodium formate and sodium acetate and other less toxic runway deicing substitutes, other than urea, is deemed BAT for this regulation. With the substitution to less toxic alternatives, EPA believes environment improvements ca n be achieved while still allowing the use of runway deicers, and without compromising air transportation safety. Also see response to EA_GEN EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1217.2

– 2 and EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1

– 129. EA_INTAKES - EA benefits to downstream water intakes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1199 - 1 While the requirement for such technology - based effluent standards to control pollution from airport deicing discharges is long overdue, the proposed standards do not address airport - specific discharge p ollution so that such discharges are protective of downstream drinking water intakes. Response: See the EPA response to comment number EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1199, Excerpt Number: 2. (below) EA_INTAKES - EA benefits to downstream water intakes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1199 - 2 Propylene glycol is used as a anti - icing /deicing fluid (ADF) used by Dulles Airport. This chemical causes odor and taste problems in drinking water even at low concentrations. This leads to numerous customer co mplaints and erodes public confidence in the quality of the water we provide. Following winter - weather related deicing events it is common for ADF contaminated water to reach Fairfax Water's intake on the Potomac River. The treatment processes in place at the Corbalis Plant are state of the art and include ozone and granular activate carbon treatment, but cannot reliably remove this glycol contaminant to required levels to eliminate taste or odor. Despite voluntary management measures taken by the Metropoli tan Washington Airports Authority, winter - weather related discharge from the facility has repeatedly posed water quality concerns for us. The Airport's current Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) stormwater permit contains a 100 mg/L gu ideline for glycol levels. Glycol concentrations of 100mg/L or less at Horsepen outfall are generally protective in limiting glycol to an363 acceptable level, approximately 5 mg/L, at our intake. Over the past 6 years (2002 - 2008), 81 days have had the potenti al for water quality concerns because glycol concentrations from the Airport have exceeded 100mg/L. Over the past year, Fairfax Water met with staff from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ on several occasions to express our concern abou t the lack of a limit controlling concentrations ofpropylene glycol in the Airport's VPDES permit. With the lack of an enforceable effluent limit, glycol levels have routinely exceeded the guideline over the past 6 years. On January 30, 2009, a winter - weat her storm event resulted in glycol levels at the Airport's Horsepen Run outfall of 919 mg/L (as reported by the Airport). As evidenced by such glycol concentrations at the Airport's Horsepen Run outfall, it is imperative that effluent guideline and perform ance standards be established and enforced to control the application and collection of this product to protect the drinking water supply. Response: EPA's airport deicing Effluent Limitations Guideline is a national, technology - based regulation designed to reduce the discharge of pollution from deicing activities at airports across the Country based on the best available technology economically achievable (BAT) or best available demonsrtated control technogy (BADCT/NSPS). Site - specific water quality issu es are not necessarily resolved through BAT limitations. Other similar situations to what is occurring between the Dulles Airport deicing discharges and the Fairfax County Water Authority drinking water intakes on the Potomac River may not be occurring any where else in the Country, and EPA has no evidence of such. Therefore, these concerns are best addressed on a site - specific basis by the the NPDES permitting authority (the State of Virginia in this case) imposing water quality - based limitations on the air port's discharges of deicing chemicals to prevent odor and taste issues in the drinking water source water. This can be done through NPDES permit re opener clauses that may apply, or at the time of permit renewal, which typically occurs every five years. T his can also be done through water quality standards revisions at the State by re - designating the Potomac River and its tributaries that convey the airport deicing discharges into the river as drinking water source designated uses and deriving the proper w ater quality criteria to control the impacting chemicals that can then be translating into water quality based effluent limitations. EA_INTAKES - EA benefits to downstream water intakes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1199 - 5 The proposed minimum th reshold for ADF used to determine BAT basis does not adequately address impacts to downstream water supply users. As drafted, the 60% ADF capture requirement would only apply to airports with more than 460,000 gallons of ADF usage regardless of site specif ic considerations or downstream impacts to water supplies. The threshold criteria must not be arbitrarily established to limit its impact to selected airports but rather must be based on site specific criteria such as the presence ofdownstream water intake s and include considerations for their capacity and service area ofthe water intakes. Wheresuch critical facilities are operating downstream of Airport outfalls, the criteria should consider demonstrated impacts to such intakes such that the ADF impacts fr om the Airport outfalls are negligible. Where demonstrated impacts to intakes occur, the threshold for ADF capture should certainly be no less than that required for new source performance standards (60%). Response: See the EPA response to comment numbe r EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1199, Excerpt Number: 2. (above)364 EA_INTAKES - EA benefits to downstream water intakes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1222.1 - 2 AMWA and AWWA recommend that EPA establish threshold criteria based on site - specific criteria such as the presence of downstream water intakes and include considerations for their capacity and service area of the water intakes. AMWA and AWWA believe that when critical drinking water facilities are operating downstream of airport outfalls, the criteria should consider demonstrated impacts to such intakes such that the ADF impacts from the airport outfalls are negligible. And, where demonstrated impacts to i ntakes occur, the threshold for ADF capture should be no less than that required for new source performance standards (60%). Response: See the EPA response to comment number EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1199, Excerpt Number: 2. (above) EA_MONITIZE - EA benefits should be monetized Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 86 EPA Should Develop a Full Environmental Assessment and an Analysis of Monetized Benefits for the ELG It is very unusual for EPA not to have done an environmental assessment and a monetized benefits analysis for an ELG, as is the case here for the proposed Airport Deicing ELG. EPA staff indicated to us that this unusual course was taken because the proposed regulation is projected to cost less than $100 million per year and there is no requirement for EPA to develop such analyses for a regulation that is pro jected to cost less than this figure. This is true, but EPA has nevertheless always (insofar as we are aware) developed an environmental assessment and a monetized benefits analysis for ELGs, including for those ELGs that have been estimated to cost much l ess than $100 million/year.66 [Footnote 66: For example, consider those ELGs promulgated since the beginning of the year 2000. EPA’s effluent guidelines internet page (http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/industry.html) shows six ELGs first promulgated si nce the beginning of the year 2000: Centralized Waste Treatment, Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production, Landfills, Metal Products and Machinery, Transportation Equipment Cleaning, and Waste Combustors. Each of these six promulgated ELGs involved annualize d costs of much less than $100 million per year and much less than the costs estimated for the proposed Airport Deicing ELG, and yet EPA prepared environmental assessments and monetized benefits analyses for each of these six much less costly ELGs. In addi tion, since the year 2000 we believe that EPA has promulgated two additional ELGs that do not show up on EPA’s web page as first promulgated since the beginning of 2000: revisions to the CAFO ELG and Construction and Development. Both of these recent ELGs cost more than $100 million per year, and for both of them EPA prepared an environmental assessment and monetized benefits analysis. In sum, as best we are aware, since the beginning of the year 2000, EPA has promulgated eight ELGs, and each has been accom panied by an environmental assessment and a monetized benefits analysis. Six of these eight promulgated ELGs were estimated to entail costs of much less than $100 million annually, and much less than what the proposed Airport Deicing ELG is projected to co st.] It is not at all clear to us why EPA has chosen for the proposed Airport Deicing ELG not to develop an environmental assessment and monetized benefits analysis in contravention of EPA’s consistent policy to develop such analyses for all ELGs, even whe n they are projected to cost less than $100 million per year. In our view, there are two reasons in addition to precedent why EPA should develop these analyses for the proposed Airport Deicing ELG: First, the interested public and the potentially regulated community needs to know what the water quality impacts and the monetized benefits are estimated to be from this proposed regulation. The public needs to know what the regulation is likely to do in terms of improving water quality and whether the regulatio n is likely to provide benefits commensurate with its costs. We certainly understand that ELGs are legally required to reflect technological capability rather than water quality impacts, but it is nevertheless a principle of good administrative decision - ma king that a regulatory365 agency must analyze and consider the impacts and benefits of all proposed regulations, and make the Agency’s estimates regarding these issues available to the public to enable informed comment on proposed regulations. Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. EPA did develop an Environmental Impacts and Benefits Assessment (EIB). This document has been in the docket for review. The environmental inpacts that will be minimized or prevented, and the reduced pollutant loadings est imates that will result from the rule have been explained in this document. Preliminary cost estimates were a part of that assessment and the estimates were below $100 million total cost for the proposed rule. When this is the case, EPA has the flexibili ty to forego a full cost - benefits analysis. In addition, EPA's calculations indicate the cost of the final rule will still be less than $100 million as were the four proposed options. Under the CWA it is well established that cost benefit analysis is not required for establishing technology based limits under BAT or BADCT. See e.g., EPA v. National Crushed Stone Assn., 449 U.S. 64 (1980). EA_MONITIZE - EA benefits should be monetized Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 88 Our second reason for believing that EPA should prepare an environmental assessment and monetized benefits analysis for the proposed Airport Deicing ELG is because an accurate estimate of likely compliance costs posed by the proposed ELG would show costs far in excess of $100 m illion per year. Executive Order 12866 requires a full monetized benefits analysis and explicit comparison of costs against benefits for any proposed regulation with costs exceeding $100 million per year (as well as any other regulation posing significant policy concerns). EPA thus far in its analysis has greatly underestimated the compliance costs likely associated with the Proposed Rule, and even so has arrived at a cost estimate of $ 91.3 million per year, only slightly below the $100 million per year ma ndatory threshold for benefits analysis. Correcting the numerous errors in EPA’s current cost analysis (e.g., omitting costs of operational impacts; underestimating costs for pads, GRVs, treatment and piping; omitting costs for new sources, etc.) would res ult in estimated costs far greater than $100 million per year. Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. EPA did develop an Environmental Impacts and Benefits Assessment (EIB). This document has been in the docket for review. The environmental inpa cts that will be minimized or prevented, and the reduced pollutant loadings estimates that will result from the rule have been explained in this document. Preliminary cost estimates were a part of that assessment and the estimates were below $100 million total cost for the proposed rule. When this is the case, EPA has the flexibility to forego a full cost - benefits analysis. In addition, EPA's calculations indicate the annual cost of the final rule are $3.5 million which is clearly far less than $100 mill ion. Under the CWA it is well established that cost benefit analysis is not required for establishing technology based limits under BAT or BADCT. See e.g., EPA v. National Crushed Stone Assn., 449 U.S. 64 (1980). EA_NEWS - Use of newspaper articles to support impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1213.2 - 6 Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category, page 3 - 19 Wildlife Impacts, 3.4.2.2 Other Organism Impacts, second paragraph; Appendix C: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges, page C - 4, Denver International Airport, Scanlon (1997) and Eddy (1997) DIA takes exception to the EPA’s use of366 unscientific sources (newspaper articles) in characterizing the impac ts of airport activities to the environment, especially when no due diligence was performed as to the validity of the allegations asserted in the cited sources. Specifically, for the event cited in the referenced sources, DIA conducted a Receiving Water St udy (March 2003) and presented the resulting evidence to the CDPHE in a rulemaking hearing. The CDPHE found that there is no substantial difference in the naturally occurring dissolved oxygen levels in stream segments in the vicinity of DIA than those atta ined in DIA’s receiving waters. In addition, the CDPHE found that the biological evidence provided by the DIA study demonstrated: That there are more biota present in the streams impacted by DIA’s operations. That habitat and flow are the primary stressors limiting the aquatic life use for these segments. That it is not apparent that increased controls of fugitive releases of deicing fluid from DIA would result in increases in aquatic life in the affected segments. The proposed site - specific standards for t his rulemaking were adopted by the CDPHE without modification.** ** Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Commission, Regulation No. 38 (5 CCR 1002 - 38), Classifications and Numeric Standards for South Platte River Basi n, section 38.61 Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose, July 2004, Rulemaking, subsection K.6. Upper South Platte Segments 16d, 16e, 16f; Middle South Platte Segments 3b, 5b. Response: EPA has re - examined the two newspaper articles cited by the commenter as being "unscientific sources" in characterizing the impacts of airport activities to the environment. EPA has also re - constructed a timeline of events at Denver International Airport ( DIA) in comparison to the more recent reports of no impacts cited by the commenter. EPA disagrees with the commenter that these two newspaper articles should not be made a part of the record for the deicing rule. Each newspaper article reported on impacts to waterbodies adjacent to the airport due to uncontrolled airport deicing discharges in 1997, prior to the construction of deicing pads at DIA. The articles interviewed residents in the vicinity of the discharges, and even interviewed DIA officials and CD PHE officials, all of whom observed and confirmed odors and other evidence of glycol in the environment, and whom recognized at the time, the need to control the deicing dicharges with the future installation of deicing pads. Deicing pads were then subsequ ently installed and became operational prior to DIA conducting the Receiving Water Study in 2002 - 2003. As would be expected, and as reported by the 2003 study, with the installation of deicing pads to prevent the prior uncontrolled discharges to nearby wat erbodies, impacts to these waterbodies were eliminated, and in fact the fauna of the streams recovered. Rather than dismissing the newspaper reports of the impacts that were occurring in 1997, and earlier, the reports provide a qualitative baseline to help illustrate the benefit reducing or even eliminating deicing discharge impacts. EPA has also studied and evaluated the CDPHE study (March 2003) and believes this is a scientifically valid study that shows the benefits to the environmental of the use of dei cing pads. This study has been made a part of the record. EA_O2_RICH - EA benefits cannot be claimed for oxygen rich receiving waters Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 111 In its Environmental Benefits and Impact Analysis for the Proposed Rule, EPA analyzes all of the various ADF and pavement deicers in terms of oxygen demand or consumption of dissolved oxygen (DO).277 These oxygen - demanding materials typically are measured in either COD or BOD5. The Port Authority airports discharge storm water to large tidal saline water bodies directly connected to the Atlantic Ocean. Several studies have shown that these water bodies are so highly oxygen - rich that the discharges from the Port Authority airports never have resulted in a contravention of water quality standards for DO. In addition, the Port Authority has not received evidence that the deicing operations at our airports have contributed to the negative impacts that have been reported in other highly sensitive fresh receiving water environments

– including significant reductions in dissolved oxygen levels, fish kills, reduction in organism abundance and diversity, elimination of the aquatic community, contamination of groundwater367 or surface drinking water resources, or any aesthetic impacts to surf ace waters, including foaming, noxious odors, or discoloration. Water quality in New York Harbor continues to improve. Those improvements can be attributed directly to investments in increased POTW capacity and enhanced treatment. As stated in the 2008 New York Harbor Water Quality Report conducted annually by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, “The findings of this year’s report show that overall aquatic health and essential Harbor ecosystems are continuing to thrive. Key indicators (including dissolved oxygen) reveal that the current water quality of the Harbor is at its cleanest level in over a century.” The NYSDEC has set forth several mandates to confirm that JFK, in particular, is not causing water quality impacts. NYSDEC require d the Port Authority, through special conditions in the most recent SPDES permit for JFK, to perform acute Whole Effluent Toxicity (“WET”) testing. The results showed no acute toxicity, and additional chronic testing was therefore not required. In addition , the NYSDEC required that the Port Authority report all pollutants that are discharged from all outfalls including EPA Priority Pollutants, temperature (Outfall 10 only), free available chlorine (Outfall 10 only), CBOD5, BOD5, glycols, oil and grease, tot al suspended solids, methyl tert - butyl ether (MTBE), benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene (BTEX), total nitrogen, and any additional pollutants that may be associated with de - icing/anti - icing materials used at the airport (n - hexadecane, n - dodecane, 5 - met hyl - 1h benzotriazole, n - tetradecane, aluminum, barium, boron, calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, sodium, tin, titanium, vanadium). In response, the Port Authority submitted a Water Quality Modeling Plan to NYSDEC, which was approved. This plan is being augmented with ambient data from the receiving waters around JFK, including samples at each outfall that coincide with deicing discharge events. The Port Authority’s efforts are ongoing, but to date, the latest analysis278 confirms earlier studie s and shows that water quality standards are not being contravened by airport storm water discharges from JFK. Therefore, at least in terms of all of the relevant data available on potential impacts of current storm water discharges, there are none. Hence, incremental reductions in pollutants that would be attributed to EPA’s proposed ELG standards, if implemented at JFK, would not generate any, let alone congruent, appreciable benefits from a water quality perspective. From 1992 to 2005, the Port Authority conducted several studies279 to assess potential impacts to local saline water bodies from the storm water discharges containing deicing fluid. The studies demonstrated that there is no significant impact to ambient dissolved oxygen levels in water bodies adjacent to Port Authority airports, justifying the current BMP approach to storm water permitting. In 1992, the Port Authority conducted a study to assess impacts to Flushing and Jamaica bays from discharge of storm water containing spent deicing fluids. In its report, Hydroqual concluded that, “Water quality data compiled for locations adjacent to the airports in Flushing and Jamaica bays for each month of the year indicated that the average dissolved oxygen concentration present in each bay was about 6 to 7 mg/l in Flushing Bay and about 10 mg/l in Jamaica Bay. The oxidation of chemical deicers in Flushing Bay under these worst case assumptions would, therefore, decrease ambient dissolved oxygen concentrations from about 6.5 mg/l to about 6.0 mg/l, a 7.7 percent decrease. The maximum decrease would be about 4.6 percent if the deicer were used equally during five events and about 2.3 percent if the deicer were used equally during 10 events.” Similarly, dissolved oxygen in Jamaica Bay would decrease from ab out 10 mg/l to about 8.9 mg/l near the airport under the absolute worst - case scenario, a decrease of about 11 percent. The decrease in dissolved oxygen concentrations would be about 6 percent if the deicer loads entered the bay equally in five events, and about 3 percent if the deicer loads entered the bay equally in 10 events. None of these “impacts” has any water quality impact (see below). According to Hydroqual, “These changes do not significantly reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations in either Flushin g or Jamaica bays. Since the reductions in dissolved oxygen concentrations under all deicer loading scenarios are minor, with respect to the ambient winter dissolved oxygen concentrations present in the bays, it does not appear that the discharge of deicer s would impact biota within the bay. These small computed decreases, which are expected to occur at times when the bay water is coldest, will probably have little effect on the bay.” EPA also should note that these marine systems flush themselves of oxygen - demanding chemicals every one to six days, so there is no residual effect associated with deicing events that typically do not occur one right after the other. In addition, deicing materials in storm water break down at a rapid rate. Finally, dissolved ox ygen issues are368 less of a concern in cold, winter weather during periods when deicing activities will occur. As a result, EPA must recognize that little or no benefit can be derived from controlling deicing materials in storm water discharges from the Port Authority airports. The only time when dissolved oxygen levels in these bays might need attention is during warmer weather

– in June, July, and August

– but by then, any residual oxygen demanding materials from deicing are long gone. The Port Authority co nducted a 1998 study to assess impacts to Flushing and Jamaica bays from discharge of storm water containing spent deicing fluids from JFK and LGA. At the end of that study, Hydroqual reported that, “The NYSDEC dissolved oxygen standard is established for a water body to protect designated water uses such as recreation and survival and propagation of fish and other aquatic biota. Since reductions in dissolved oxygen concentration under all deicer loading scenarios are minor with respect to ambient winter di ssolved oxygen concentrations present in the bays and dissolved oxygen standards are calculated to be maintained, it is concluded that water uses are protected.” In August 2000, Hydroqual conducted additional water quality modeling of Elizabeth Channel/New ark Bay to assess the possible impacts from deicing fluids at EWR. Hydroqual reported that “Data available from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in Newark Bay for the winter months of 1993 - 94 are well above the dissolved oxygen standard minimum of 3.0 mg/l for Newark Bay. Monthly dissolved oxygen averaged 7.8 mg/l for November and 10.6 mg/l for March. In Newark Bay, the calculated reductions in dissolved oxygen concentration due to the oxidation of deicer load do not have the potential to cause viol ations in the NJDEP dissolved oxygen standard.” In February 2005, Hydroqual concluded, “The water quality modeling of Flushing/Bowery Bay indicates that the dissolved oxygen impacts of the LaGuardia deicer storm water discharge are not large enough to caus e water quality standard violations. The evaluation of assimilative capacity of the Flushing Bay/Bowery Bay system to accept oxygen demanding materials indicates that a discharge of up to 5,250,000 lbs/day of CBODu, an equivalent of approximately 588,000 g allons of deicer would still maintain water quality standards. The receiving water can, therefore, assimilate the quantities of deicer used at the airport.... The conclusions resulting from the modeling and assimilation capacity evaluation are supported by o bserved dissolved oxygen in the bays. Winter dissolved oxygen is well above the dissolved oxygen standard. This indicates that historic LaGuardia Airport deicer stormwater loads have not caused dissolved oxygen water quality problems...” In August 2005, Hydr oqual concluded, “The receiving water quality modeling and the winter dissolved oxygen data indicated that the current deicer usage volumes discharged to the Flushing Bay in LaGuardia stormwater runoff do not cause or have the potential to cause violations of NYSDEC surface water quality dissolved oxygen standards.” The City of New York has been collecting water quality data in New York Harbor since 1909 through the Annual New York City Department of Environmental Protection (“NYCDEP”) New York Harbor Water Quality Survey. These data are utilized by regulators, scientists, educators and citizens to assess impacts, trends and improvements in the water quality of New York Harbor. In 2008, NYCDEP reported that harbor water quality has improved dramatically sinc e the initial surveys. Infrastructure improvements and the capture and treatment of virtually all dry - weather sewage are the primary reasons for this improvement. During the last decade, water quality in NY harbor has improved to the point that the waters are now utilized for recreation and commerce throughout the year. NYCDEP reported that the 2008 summer averages in Jamaica Bay (JFK discharges to Jamaica Bay) for dissolved oxygen (DO) for surface and bottom waters surpassed the New York State standard of never less than 5.0 mg/L for bathing (SB) at all stations except for bottom waters at station J12 (Grassy Bay) where there is a lack of water circulation. The studies and sampling results described above clearly indicate that the deicing discharges from ou r winter airport operations do not cause local water quality concerns. Current SPDES and NJPDES permit requirements, and the Port Authority’s BMP program (with the airlines) are successfully protecting the receiving waters. The Port Authority discussed all of these findings with EPA staff in October 2005. EPA should respect the levels of control contained in the Port Authority permits and compliance programs, and should have accounted for these successes when developing proposed deicing ELG standards in lie u of attempting to mandate deicing pads. Given our permit compliance record and lack of adverse water quality impacts, it is the Port Authority’s position that an additional layer of regulation to control deicing discharges beyond the current compliance pr ogram would impose an undue cost on the Authority and the369 airlines, and that no appreciable environmental benefit would be achieved through such an expenditure. Hence, EPA’s Proposed Rule is unjust, arbitrary and capricious. [FOOTNOTE: 278 “John F. Kennedy International Airport State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. NY 0008109, Special Condition 1, 2009 - 2009 Sampling Summary Report,” June 15, 2009, HDR. The Port Authority would be happy to provide copies of sampling and modeling results to EPA upon request.] Response: In summary, this comment argues that EPA’s Deicing Effluent Limitations Guideline is unjust, arbitrary and capricious, namely because the commenter claims there are no on - going water quality problems occurring in the specifi c water bodies into which the authority’s airports discharge as a result of those discharges. This comment reflects a basic misunderstanding and confusion about the two main strategies for water pollution control under the Clean Water Act

– technology ba sed requirements and water quality based requirements. Technology based requirements, like those established in this regulaiton are established by the Effluent Limitation Guidelines Program, whereas water - quality based effluent limitations are based in t he Water Quality Standards Program. The CWA requires EPA to promulgate Effluent Guidelines for new and existing categories of industrial dischargers. (See CWA sections 301(b), 304, 304(m)(1)(B) and (C)). Effluent Guidelines are technology - based requiremen ts to control industrial wastewater discharges regardless of known, or yet to be proven, site - specific water quality problems. Effluent guidelines limit the discharge of pollutants not based upon the impact of the pollutants on receiving waters, but in stead on the capabilities of equipment to control discharges EPA issues Effluent Guidelines for new and existing categories of industrial dischargers, both those discharging directly to surface waters and those discharging to publicly owned treatment work s (POTWs). The guidelines are technology - based: they are based on the performance of available treatment and control technologies that is assessed on a national level, not on violations of specific State water quality standards, or on site specific water q uality issues. The stringency of an Effluent Guideline (BAT or BADCT) accounts for the available technology to reduce pollution, and for the cost and economic achievability. These limitations reduce pollution to the maximum extent possible given the afford able technologies for an industry and considering non water quality environmental impacts . In this way, Effluent Guidelines establish a floor for control of discharges that may be supplmented by water quality - based limitations as necessary to protect wat er quality. Discharge permits issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) incorporate technology - based limits on specific pollutants set in Effluent Guidelines, and facilities must meet those limits to comply with Clean Water Act requirements. Effluent Guidelines work in tandem with a wider range of programs, including water quality standards, to protect and restore the Nation's waters. The Water Quality Standards Program, required by Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act, requ ires that dischargers of pollutants meet limits as necessary to meet an applicable water quality standard. . Water quality standards, established by the States, are based upon the designated use of a water body, the water quality criteria derived to prot ect those uses, and anti - degradation policies, designed to prevent significant deterioration of existing water quality. Water quality standards are designed to prevent water quality problems from occurring in particular water bodies by controlling the disc harge of pollution to prevent numerical or narrative water quality criteria from ever being exceeded. Water quality standards are applied on a case - by - case basis under site - specific facts and circumstances. The commenter conflates these two complementary C WA control strategiesand argues that Effluent Guideline limitations on airport deicing discharges are not needed because there are no known or proven violations of water quality standards in the specific locations into which the authority’s airport deicing discharges are occurring that are caused by the discharges. This argument is inconsistent with the legal requirements of the CWA, as described above. In addition, the commenter overlooks other important benefits of reducing the discharge of deicing pollut ion to waters of the U.S. The commenter considers EPA’s use of chemical oxygen demand (COD) to be erroneous since there are no COD (or biological oxygen demand (BOD)) problems in their water bodies. This argument is invalid and reveals a lack of understand ing of why EPA used COD as a key pollutant for deicing pollution. EPA used COD as an indicator pollutant. Meaning that when COD, the indicator, is reduced by technology controls on the370 sources of the pollution, other contaminants, such as toxic chemicals a nd bioaccumulative chemicals (found in the additives to deicing fluids, which include corrosion inhibitors, thickeners and freezing point reducers) will be reduced as well. Simply focusing on COD as the only pollutant of concern, as the commenter argues, w ould lead to the lack of control on the other, potentially more harmful, pollutants. Finally, the commenter argues that the embayments into which their airport deicing pollution is conveyed, flush themselves frequently and this leads to the deicing polluta nts dispersing and degrading rapidly. The commenter claims that over 5 million pounds per day of deicing pollution oxygen demanding substances should be allowed in one particular water body. This argument ignores the requirements of the Clean Water Act, il lustrates a lack of understanding of water pollution control and argues in favor of using the Nation’s water bodies as wastewater conveyances and pollution repositories. This is contrary to the technology based approach. (See e.g. Weyerhaeuser v. Costle , 590 F.2d 1011, 1043 (discussing Congress’ frustration with relying solely on the water quality based approach in passing the 1972 amendments to the CWA and adopting a new approach. Citing the Legislative History, “The Senate Committee declared that ‘[t ]he use of any river, lake stream or ocean as a waste treatment system is unacceptable’

— regardless of the measurable impact of the waste on the body of water in question. Leg. Hist at 14225.”). EPA’s airport deicing effluent limitations guideline is j ust and reasonable and implements the requirements of the Clean Water Act, helping to reduce pollution from getting into the Nation’s water bodies. EA_O2_RICH - EA benefits cannot be claimed for oxygen rich receiving waters Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 82 The Proposed Rule Focuses on Reducing COD Discharges from Marine Airports, Which Will Provide Little Environmental Benefit. According to EPA’s estimates, the proposed ADF collection and treatment requirements will result in a reduction of 27.2 million pounds of COD discharges. Over 18 million of the 27.2 million pounds of COD removal are associated with four airports: Boston’s General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport, Newark Liberty International Airport, and New York’s John F. Kennedy International and LaGuardia Airports. This equates to 66 percent of the total ADF - related COD removals expected to result from implementation of the Proposed Rule. These airports discharge directly into the Atlantic Ocean. Years of s tudy at these airports indicate that deicer stormwater discharges have never lead to any concern about water quality violations for dissolved oxygen.64 [Footnote 64: See, for example, comments on the Proposed Rule submitted by the Port Authority of New Yor k and New Jersey.] The environmental impacts of glycol - based ADF are significantly less with regard to saltwater receiving waters than they are to freshwater. By simple comparison, the “toxic weighting factor” (TWF) for EG in freshwater is 0.00134, in the copper - based toxicity scale (where copper toxicity = 1.0). EG’s saltwater TWF is a miniscule 0.00000812. PG’s TWFs reflect the fact that PG is far less toxic than EG. The freshwater TWF for PG is 0.0000572 and the saltwater TWF is 0.000000855. Clearly, EPA cannot take credit for much benefit derived from removing PG or EG discharges from ocean environments. Response: See response to comment number EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1, excerpt 111. (above) EA_REC_WATER - Receiving water data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1190.1 - 2 Since 1994 Lake Hood and Lake Spenard have been listed on the Department of Environmental Conservation's impaired water bodies list under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act because of low dissolved oxygen resulting from i ndustrial run - off from the TSAIA;371 Response: For the reasons explained in the final preamble, the final rule does not establish requirements for aircraft deicing discharges. Rather, such requirements will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. However, this does not mean that EPA concluded such discharges should not be regulated. Rather, as explained in the preamble, EPA concluded it could not determine BAT on a national basis. EPA thanks the commenter for their resolution. This re solution by the Turnagain Community Council is an expression of support for controlling deicing/anti - icing fluid specifically at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. The resolution also points out that certain techologies are available, such as infrared heating, that can provide a high level of control through method substitution. EPA acknowledges that better controlling the discharge of deicing/anti - icing fluids is an important endeavor to help prevent environmental impacts to ground water and surface waters and especially for waterbodies that are listed as impaired. EPA also acknowledges that certain advanced technologies such as infrared, may be applicable in certain cases. The State of AK will be able to consider the application of these te chnologies in making its BPJ analysis. EA_REC_WATER - Receiving water data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1217.2 - 1 More recently, high levels of potassium acetate have been documented as a concern for potential adverse affect in waters receiving ru noff from deicing operations (Environmental Science and Technology, 2009; 43:1, 40 - 46). The documentation for the ELG does not include information on the potential effects of pavement deicer runoff in receiving waters other than urea. While removal of urea as a widespread option for use as a pavement deicer may be warranted due to environmental impact, data on the environmental impact of the alternative formulations are not presented. An evaluation of alternative deicers would be necessary to determine whet her replacement of urea by these alternative deicers would result in a reduction of environmental impact or merely changing the pollutant. Response: EPA was aware of the potential environmental impacts of alternative airport deicing/anti - icing formulations, including those used on runways, as well as aircraft, while preparing the proposed rule. The paper cited by the commenter, Environmental Science an d Technology, 2009; 43:1, 40 - 46, is a paper written by S. Corsi of the USGS. This paper was carefully evaluated by EPA and is a part of the record of support for the environmental assessment for the rule along with other similar studies and findings. Altho ugh potassium acetate can degrade to form COD and may contain some additives in it that may be toxic, the COD and toxicity are far less than that generated by urea. EPA did conduct an evaluation of all the alternatives to urea and concluded that the alter native deicers would result in an overall reduction of environmental impacts as well as consulted with S. Corsi on his research and findings. The data and information supporting these evaluations can be found in the Environmental Impact and Benefit Assessm ent (EPA - 821 - R - 09 - 003, July 2009). EA_REC_WATER - Receiving water data Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1223.1 - 7 All of our watersheds face outsized impacts from industrial and/or agricultural legacy. The added stress of low dissolved oxygen places burdens on ecosystems already faced with challenges no state or federal regulator would allow today. The Hackensack River The Hackensack River is undergoing a slow recovery. The river is cleaner today than it has been in decades. Factories no longer disch arge toxic waste372 into it. Nearby garbage dumps have been closed, and modern sewage treatment plants have been built. The river’s ongoing return to health has made it hospitable to numerous wildlife species. Many are returning to the watershed from which th ey were once driven by pollution and habitat destruction. The New Jersey Meadowlands, in particular, is becoming a haven for animals of all kinds, including hundreds of species of birds. The return of the osprey is perhaps the best example of the Hackensac k River’s recovery. Three years ago, a pair of these large fish - eating hawks nested on a platform located on the grounds of PSEG’s Hudson Generating Station in Jersey City. While the birds’ first nesting attempt was unsuccessful, each subsequent year has b een successful. In 2009, three young ospreys fledged from the site. Several ongoing environmental stressors retard the Hackensack’s recovery. Urban and industrial runoff remains a large problem. The river’s sediments contain toxic materials that pose threa ts to human and animal health. The salt/freshwater balance remains disrupted because freshwater flows are low compared to historic levels. Illegal discharge of pollutants remains a problem as evinced by the criminal indictment of an area hotel. Nutrient lo ading is still too high, and many of the existing SPDES permits do not require the best technology. Teterboro Airport’s glycol discharge is a major concern for Hackensack Riverkeeper. Teterboro Airport discharges its storm water, periodically laden with de icing chemicals, into the remains of the Berry's Creek watershed. Berry's Creek is a federal superfund site that contains the highest concentrations of mercury known to exist in any site in the world. Berry's Creek, in turn, discharges into the Hackensack River. Teterboro Airport's glycol discharges have thousands of times the impact on BOD as those of parties facing criminal charges, and Teterboro’s discharges are - as far as NJDEP and ultimately the EPA are concerned - completely legal. Allowing this stat e of affairs to continue is irresponsible. The best available control technology would allow NO glycol into waters of the United States. The EPA's standard should be that NO glycol should enter the waters of the United States. Newark Bay Like the Hackensac k River, which discharges its sediment load into the Bay, Newark Bay is struggling to recover from centuries of abuse. Newark Bay is listed on the EPA’s National Priorities List as a Superfund Site, and its sediments are heavily contaminated with industria l toxins including PCBs, dioxin, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons. Crawford et al. note The available data indicate that both the diversity and the abundance of aquatic species within the estuary have been substantially reduced since the late 1800s due to th e intense industrialization and urbanization that occurred throughout the region. Water and sediment quality in major rivers and bays linked to the estuary have also been severely impacted. In addition, significant natural habitat has been destroyed as a r esult of industrial development, urban expansion, and shoreline modifications. Each of these parameters directly influences the status and condition of the ecological community, and their deterioration has likely been the cause of multiple adverse impacts on the overall health of the ecosystem. Review of more recent studies of sediment and water quality indicates that pollution control measures and the reduction or control of other environmental stressors have produced a gradual improvement in the ecosystem over the past 2 decades.10 [FOOTNOTE: 10 Crawford DW, Bonnevie NL, Gillis CA, Wenning RJ., Historical changes in the ecological health of the Newark Bay Estuary, New Jersey Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 1994 Dec;29(3):276 - 303.] Newark Airport discharges its in dustrial storm water into the Newark Bay. Its current permit has unfortunately lax monitoring requirements, and its only effluent limit is for hydrocarbons. Given the amount of glycol used at Newark Airport, the lack of a BOD effluent limit is extremely pr oblematic. Newark Bay, amazingly, supports (or at least doesn’t immediately kill) a diverse ecosystem. That ecosystem is under constant assault from existing and continuing toxic pollution. According to EPA Region 2, “The sediments of the lower Passaic Riv er and Newark Bay are contaminated with a variety of hazardous substances, including dioxin, PCBs, mercury, DDT, pesticides and heavy metals. The entire Newark Bay region, including the lower Passaic, is under a fish and shellfish consumption advisory due to the contamination over the past 100 years by numerous sources along the river.”11 [FOOTNOTE: 11 http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/diamondalkali/] Between 1986 and 1991, 1,400 reported spills occurred in Newark Bay, resulting in the release of mo re than 18 million gallons of hazardous materials into the estuary . "The bulk of the chemicals released to the aquatic environment were petroleum products, specifically No. 2 Fuel Oil (4,636,512 gallons) and No. 6 Fuel Oil (12,600,683 gallons). The majori ty of the reported incidents occurred in the Arthur Kill and its tributaries. The results373 indicate that accidental discharge of petroleum and other hazardous chemicals to Newark Bay represents a significant ongoing source of chemical pollution."12 [FOOTNOT E: 12 Gunster, D.G. ; Bonnevie, N.L. ; Gillis, C.A.; Wenning, R.J., Assessment of chemical loadings to Newark Bay, New Jersey from petroleum and hazardous chemical accidents occurring from 1986 to 1991. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety; (United State s); Journal Volume: 25:2 1993 Apr 01] Under an existing and historic burden from a legacy of toxic pollution, the Newark Bay ecosystems are ill equipped to deal with periodic acute oxygen deprivation. We expect that elimination of glycol discharges into th e bay would represent a marked improvement. Jamaica Bay Jamaica Bay is commonly referred to as the jewel of New York City’s public parks. It is a key stopover on the North Atlantic flyway for migratory birds and provides a valuable buffer from tidal floodw aters for millions of Brooklyn and Queens residents. Jamaica Bay is known for its salt marsh islands that provide habitat for a variety of wildlife. Jamaica Bay has suffered in recent decades because of excess nitrogen pollution from area wastewater treatm ent facilities. Nitrogen encourages the growth of phytoplankton, which in turn lowers dissolved oxygen. To address this long standing problem, the New York City DEP, the New York State DEC and a coalition of environmental groups including NY/NJ Baykeeper a nnounced a $115M project to reduce nitrogen pollution in the bay by upgrading several wastewater treatment plants, funding marsh restoration and undertaking long term continuous monitoring.13 [FOOTNOTE: 13 http://www.yournabe.com/articles/2010/02/26/brookl yn/ courier - yn_brooklyn_front_page - paerwaterhsk.txt ] As bad as the nitrogen impacts were from the wastewater facilities, the lowest dissolved oxygen levels found in the bay are located just off the shore from JFK Airport. It is reasonable to conclude tha t glycol discharges from JFK contribute to the low DO levels in that part of the bay and maybe others. Improved wastewater practices by JFK Airport would improve water quality in the bay, especially when considered in concert with the improvements announce d by Mayor Bloomberg on February 25th of this year. The Delaware River Basin contains two primary commercial airports that would fall under the scope of the proposed rule. Philadelphia International Airport used the second highest amount of propylene glyc ol based - pavement deicing fluids in the country, according to the Technical Development Document accompanying the proposed effluent guidelines (EPA 821 - R - 09 - 004), second only to Chicago O’Hare International Airport. Additionally, PHL was determined to have the 13th highest total (ADF) usage nationwide. The Delaware River main steam has very low dissolved oxygen standards in parts of the main stem near the airport (ranging from 4.0

– 7.0 mg/l while the DRBC criteria are even lower from 3.5mg/l to 6.0 mg/l). We do not believe these lower ranges are protective to the aquatic life that rely on the River and DRN has been working to raise the bar for more protective DO standards at the DRBC and state level. For example, the Delaware River once supported the larges t population of Atlantic Sturgeon in North America. Today, it is home to fewer than 100 individuals remaining. We need protective DO measures as well as control measures on large polluters like Philadelphia Airport to not allow this species and many others in the area of the airports to go extinct. At Reedy Island, where DO standards are more protective, DO criteria concentrations are a common occurrence and Delaware has listed this segment of the River for TMDL development by 2019 (Delaware River State of the Basin Report, DRBC, 2008) Yet pointing to the 1980’s improvement of DO levels is a direct result of discharge regulations and waste treatment enhancements. Today, further controlling these large sources of pollution, like that of airports, is essential , particularly as population growth is projected to continue to rise. That alone exposes our watershed to considerable risk, but the overall threat could be worse; the risks posed by discharges from Lehigh Valley International Airport were not reported in the technical development document and could not be determined. The Delaware River Basin contains at least two more airports that meet the criteria of having at least 10,000 annual departures (based on FAA Passenger Boarding Data), but do not have regular commercial service and are not considered Primary Commercial Airports. Response: EPA is concerned about the detrimental environmental impacts on all waterbodies that are subjected to the discharge of pollutants, including those from airport deicing opera tions, such as Newark Bay and its tributaries, Jamaica Bay and the Delaware River.374 EPA notes that this commenter is requesting that EPA establish no discharge of glycol as the ELG. The deicing effluent limitations guideline program is required by the Cl ean Water Act to develop technology based controls that will be used at airports across the Country. These controls will reduce discharges using the best available technology, economically achievable (BAT). As explained in the preamble, EPA has not identif ied, nor has this commenter provided information on, a technology that would lead to zero discharge of glycol. Further, for the reasons explained in the preamble, the final rule did not establish requirements for aircraft deicing discharges. Such require ments will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. See also response to EA_O2_RICH EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1

– 111. EST_EFF - Estimated collection efficiencies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 8 [I]t should be discussed that the capture efficiencies of the collection methods depend on number of factors, many outside the control of the operators. Ice, freezing precipitation, and mixed precipitation can cause more ADF to accumulate and crest ramp contours and exit the colle ction areas. Wind speeds and directions can send ADF during application out of the collection management areas. Ice or snow fall rates can exceed snow removal capacity, causing channeling or diversion away from catch basins, and reduce the effectiveness of the "GRV" operations (as referenced in the TDD, page 9 - 2). Even weather delays, causing increased traffic at a designated deice location (eliminating access for collection equipment) occur. The 20%, 40%, and 60% may be best case scenarios for the technolo gies described. In all cases you make refer to approximately 20%, approximately 40%, and about 60%. Yet later in the publication and in the proposed rule, these levels become the minimum acceptable capture efficiencies. It does not seem possible to achieve a MINIMUM capture efficiency based on MAXIMUM efficiency recorded by a technology/method. Response: EPA acknowledges that the capture efficiencies vary based on a variety of factors. However, EPA estimates that GCVs typically capture at least 20 percent of the available ADF when properly operated and maintained and plug - and - pump systems (which incorporate GCVs) typically capture at least 40 percent of the available ADF when properly operated and maintained. See the technical development document for a r evised discussion of collection efficiencies. EST_EFF - Estimated collection efficiencies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 14 COD Reductions at Outfalls: Page 44692, Section VII, (E) presents that the proposed rule would reduce the ADF pollutant discharges (COD) by 27.9 million pounds. Does this amount include a portion already collected and managed through indirect discharges (P OTW)? The TDD and EIB acknowledge that a number of airports utilize POTWs to treat collected ADF, yet the amount (whether in pounds COD or overall volume) does not seem to have been quantified. Reviewing the cost of compliance calculation spreadsheets prov ided (example: DCN AD05182) shows additional capital and operational (treatment) costs for airports that currently operate using indirect discharge as their treatment method. Was it assumed that they would construct the required on site treatment (AFB) and divert all ADF to his system? If so, the diverted material should still not be included in the potential reduction calculations, as this material is375 already being managed via an acceptable treatment method. If this is an estimated incremental benefit (i.e . airport assumed to be collecting 10% of available ADF, when 20% required) how was the baseline volume (the 10% in this case) determined if no capture rates were reported by the location? Lastly, considering the above with the potential over - estimation of the ADF applied per year (as much as 60% as discussed at the beginning of this correspondence) and the current indirect discharge volumes, what would be the potential reduction in ADF discharged? Response: EPA is no longer requiring uniform performance standards based on collection and treatment of spent ADF at existing airports, and therefore this comment is no longer applicable. However, see Section 9 of the TDD for a detailed description of the pollutant load reduction methodology. EPA developed a n estimate of the percent of available ADF that is collected and controlled at each model airport based on the model airport's existing stormwater collection as reported by airport personnel in the airport questionnaire or during EPA site visits. EPA's est imate of the percent of available ADF that is collected and controlled at each model airport became the baseline estimate for that airport. These estimates addressed available ADF that is currently discharged to a POTW or treated onsite by including it as collected and controlled. When estimating pollutant load reductions, EPA evaluated whether additional collection and control were required for a model airport and the total load that would be removed. EPA then subtracted out the baseline estimated percent of available ADF load. Thus, existing load discharged to a POTW or treated onsite was not included in the load reductions. EST_EFF - Estimated collection efficiencies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 55 The only additional observation to be mad e under TDD section 9.2 is that the range of capture efficiencies applied to the different collection methods ("GRV", "Plug & Pump", and "Deice Pads") were from airports operating multiple methods of collection, coupled with multiple methods of treatment, operating in various weather climates, etc. The various collection methods at each airport over - lap and combine to obtain the capture rates presented, and yet the GRV only examples (GRR & MKE) are really a "plug and pump", since they use catch basin insert s and diversion valves. Yet, neither reached the 40 percent minimum you later apply to "Plug and Pump" technologies without detailing a specific example. The ""Deice Pad" airports (DEN, BWI), which operate all forms of collection and also run the gambit of treatment methods, somehow have the reported capture rates attributed to their operation of "deice pads" only, resulting in a minimum capture target of 60 percent available ADF. Yet the "deice pad" only data example (DTW) reported an average near the 60 p ercent (adjusted for 50% applied verses available). Response: See the EPA response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, excerpt 8.In addition, please note that the plug and pump percent collection estimates presented in the TDD were presented on a basis of applied ADF; the estimates translate to a range of 29 to 51 percent collection of available ADF. Finally, see the Technical Development document for a more thorough explanation of the collection efficiencies than was presented at the time of proposal. EST_EFF - Estimated collection efficiencies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1235 - 2 In these cases the glycol content of the applied ADF will presumably be determined from a manufacturer’s analysis of the fluid, and glycol in the captured runoff must be measured. However, if376 degradation has occurred, the runo ff may contain the by - products of glycol degradation but no actual glycol. Thus, the real possibility arises that an otherwise effective collection system that has captured glycol and/or its byproducts (both measurable as COD) is unable to document require d ADF capture simply because the glycol that was required to be captured is no longer present as glycol. Response: As in the proposed rule, the final rule provides multiple procedures available for selection by the permittee, for demonstrating complianc e with the NSPS ADF collection requirement. Most of the procedures do not require an analysis to determine the percent collection, so the concern of the commenter is not applicable to the majority of scenarios. For specific scenarios where it might be appl icable, the permit writers have the authority to require an alternative for demonstrating that the collection technology is operating as designed. EST_EFF - Estimated collection efficiencies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 35 Page 44717, §44 9.20 (b) (1). If the BAT is defined by a certain collection percentage then the facility needs to actually demonstrate that they are achieving said percentage. EPA allowing the permittee to demonstrate compliance without the permittee having to determine t he numeric percentage of ADF that it has collected is not enforceable. The amount of ADF used on aircraft is tracked very strictly because the airlines are paying for this material. The total volume of wastewater collected is easily determined and will nee d to be determined to properly operate any storage, transport, or treatment system. An analysis of the percent glycol recovered in the wastewater is also easily conducted. The requirement for a facility to at least estimate the amount of ADF it recovers is not a burden to the facility. The information needed is readily available. Response: EPA is no longer requiring uniform controls based on collection and treatment of spent ADF at existing airports, and as such this comment is no longer applicable. H owever, as noted by other commenters, there are a variety of factors that make determining collection efficiency difficult, if not impossible, including variations in temperature and precipitation and degradation of the organic components of ADF. To reduce burden, EPA has chosen to maintain multiple procedures available for selection by the permittee, for demonstrating compliance with the NSPS ADF collection requirement. Most of the procedures do not require an analysis to determine the percent collection. EST_EFF - Estimated collection efficiencies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 45 Page 10 - 21, Section 10.5.2. Table 10 - 6 lists airports with collection efficiencies of 93%, 92%, 87%, and 85%. An explanation of what mechanisms are employed at these airports to achieve this high level of collection should be included. Response: For mor e information about the determination of the collection and control percentages applied to each airport, please see the ADF Collection and Control Efficiency Review Addendum memorandum, DCN AD01270.377 EST_EFF - Estimated collection efficiencies Comment Info : EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 81 EPA Incorrectly Identifies Various Airports’ ADF Collection Efficiencies. EPA’s benefits analysis requires three main components: the amount of ADF used; the existing collection efficiency; and the additional collection associated with the proposed standard. In the previous section, ACI - NA demonstrates that EPA has miscalculated the amount of ADF used. However, EPA also has incorrectly calculated the current collection efficiencies at a number of airports. Once again, for some airports EPA has overestimated collection efficiency, while at many others it has underestimated collection efficiency. The key issue is that EPA’s significant inaccuracies reduce overall confidence in its analyses and support reconsideration of the proposed rule or a “reproposal.” Several examples will illustrate this point. EPA reported that Portland International Airport (PDX) collects 20 percent of applied ADF. In fact, through significant infrastructure investment, PDX actually collects 40 percen t. EPA also assumed Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC) collects 60 percent of applied ADF simply because the airport utilizes deicing pads. SLC staff, however, report that their current deicing pad system achieves a 20 percent collection rate. Such inaccuracies further contribute to an inaccurate estimate of the current loads and the load reductions that EPA can rightfully attribute to the Proposed Rule. Response: EPA developed an estimate of the percent of available ADF that is collected and cont rolled at each model airport using the best available data that we had for an airport's existing stormwater collection and control system as reported by airport personnel in the airport questionnaire or during EPA site visits. Where airports had performed a site - specific ADF collection assessment and reported that information to EPA, it was used and EPA notes that the airports that EPA visited had done little assessment of the amount of ADF used at their airport or knew what quantity was controlled versus d ischarged. For more information about the determination of the collection and control percentages applied to each airport, please see the ADF Collection and Control Efficiency Review Addendum memorandum, DCN AD01270. EST_EFF - Estimated collection efficie ncies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1247 - 4 KCAB believes that the proposed rules are deficient in that they Do not provide guidance on verifying the accuracy of deicing fluid usage provided by airlines for mass balance calculations on the collectio n efficiency of the airport systems. Response: EPA is no longer requiring uniform controls on collection and treatment of spent ADF at existing airports, and the NSPS requirements do not require fluid usage reporting. Therefore this comment is no longer applicable. FAA_CONFLICT - ELG conflicts with FAA safety and operational requirements Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1201.1 - 1 (Boeing) Aircraft safety concerns extend to the use of deicing materials that may affect the structural or operational integrity of Boeing's products. Concerns identified with deicing compounds include hydrogen embrittlement, carbon brake damage, aircraft skin corr osion and runway surface degradation. In378 reviewing the proposed effluent guidelines there is minimal indication that products that will meet EPA's proposed requirements have been coordinated with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards process (reference SAE AIR5567 (Test Method for Catalytic Carbon Brake Disk Oxidation) and the SAE Catalytic Oxidation of Carbon Brakes Working Group under the SAE G - 12RDF Committee). Mr. Michael Arriaga, a Boeing employee, is the chairman of the aforementioned SA E working group that provided the technical basis for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulatory approval of de - icing anti - icing products and has expressed concerns about the proposed ADI - ELG rule impact on Boeing products. Boeing published a deicer related Service Letter (available for subscribers to myBoeing Fleet.com or by request to undersigned) regarding catalytic oxidation of carbon brakes based on FAA document (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgSAIB.nsf/(LookupSAIBs)/NM08 - 27?OpenDocument ) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) document (http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2008 - 19R1) . The EPA’s proposed rule also does not reference a study being conducted by the University of South Carolina "Alternative Aircraft and Airfi eld Deicing and Anti - Icing Formulations with Reduced Aquatic Toxicity and Biochemical Oxygen Demand" under Federal program (ACRP Project 02 - 01) or Impact of Airport Pavement Deicing Products on Aircraft and Airfield Infrastructure (http://onlinepubs.trb.or g/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_syn_006.pdf). Boeing recommends a coordinated product evaluation action to ensure that airport operators have safe and reliable product alternatives that meet both FAA's/DOD's aircraft safety standards and the environmental goals set by the rule. Response: The rule does not require the use of any particular pavement deicer product or aircraft deicer product and therefore does not have any bearing on SAE standards or FAA requirements. Rather, the rule provides an option to disconti nue use of urea - based pavement deicers; urea generates ammonia, a significant water pollutant. The rule also provides airports with the option of collecting and treating ammonia discharges in compliance with the numerical limit. EPA collected information on the usage of pavement deicers through its questionnaire. Questionnaire responses indicate that a large majority of airports that perform airfield pavement deicing successfully use deicers that do not contain urea. Clearly, Boeing aircraft operate at t hese airports, indicating that any of the issues identified above have been deemed to be acceptable. EPA based the estimated costs of the pavement deicing discharge requirement assuming those airports that currently use urea will substitute urea with pota ssium acetate, the most widely reported pavement deicer. See section 4.2 of the TDD. However, as explained above, the rule does not specify require the use of any particular pavement deicer. Since the rule does not require use of specific products, refe rences to the studies mentioned in the comment are not necessary. The aviation industry may proceed to research and use various alternative pavement deicer products. See section 7.4 of the TDD. Any such alternative product will meet the requirements of the effluent guidelines as long as it does not contain urea. EPA's possible participation in a coordination process involving industry - developed standards, as sugges t ed by the commenter, is not typical. Coordination of product development with SAE standa rds is the respons i bility of the industry participants. FAA_CONFLICT - ELG conflicts with FAA safety and operational requirements Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1 - 2 (IATA) In the complex aviation environment, ensuring the safety of passengers and crew must be the top priority. Congress has long recognized that the safety, efficiency and reliability of the National Air Space (NAS)379 depend on the application of a consistent set of regulatory requirements by the FAA, which embodies the capabilities and expertise necessary to develop and administer those requirements. Congressional policy further recognizes that the successful integration of each airport into the overall aviation system involves aircraft operations, infrastructure, facilities, and support operations that most appropriately fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FAA. Consequently, the Federal Aviation Act establishes a uniform and exclusive system of federal regulation of aircraft operations to be administered by the FAA. Congress has affirmed repeatedly its intent that the system maintain the primacy of safety while accommodating demand for air transportation to the maximum extent possible. Therefore, IATA be lieves the FAA must remain the sole regulatory authority over aviation. Response: EPA agrees that ensuring the safety of passengers and crew must be the top priority. The commenter is mistaken,however, that the FAA has the sole regulatory authority ove r matters that involve airport operations. See Essay (below). FAA_CONFLICT - ELG conflicts with FAA safety and operational requirements Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1 - 3 IATA strongly believes the EPA does not give due consideration to the p otential safety implications of its proposed ELG. Theses include: Airlines and airports may limit deicing to stay under limits: this provision may cause operators to not deice in marginal cases, which could result in a reduction in safety margins. Respons e: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ). The final rule contains no requirements limiting the amount of aircraft deicing flu id that an air carrier may use, nor any other restrictions on the method of deicing an aircraft. The air carrier has responsibility to see that its aircraft are deiced in accordance with FAA requirements. FAA_CONFLICT - ELG conflicts with FAA safety and o perational requirements Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 2 (ATA) A Deicing ELG Necessarily Would Conflict With the Existing Comprehensive and Exclusive Regulatory Scheme Governing Aviation Safety and Operations Congress has long recognized th at commercial aviation safety and the efficiency of the NAS depends on the application of a consistent set of regulatory requirements by a primary federal agency

– the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”)

– with the necessary expertise and capability to develop and administer those requirements. Congressional policy further recognizes that the successful integration of each airport into the system implicates not only aircraft operations, but also infrastructure, facilities, and support operations that mo st appropriately fall within the primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the FAA. To that end, the Federal Aviation Act establishes “a uniform and exclusive system of federal regulation” of aircraft operations to be administered by the FAA. Burbank v. Lockhe ed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U.S. 624, 639 (1973) (emphasis added).4 [FOOTNOTE:4 See also Abdullah v. American Airlines, Inc.,181 F.3d 363, 370 n.10 (3d Cir. 1999)(aviation regulation is an area where “[f]ederal control is intensive and exclusive.”)(quoting Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Minnesota, 322 U.S. 292, 303 (1944)).] Congress has affirmed repeatedly its intent that this system of federal regulation maintain the primacy of safety5 and accommodate, to the maximum extent possible demand for air transportat ion.6 [FOOTNOTE: 5 See e.g. 49 U.S.C. § 40101(a)380 [emphasis added]: “[T]he Secretary of Transportation shall . . . (1) assign[] and maintain[] safety as the highest priority in air commerce. . . . (3) prevent[] deterioration in established safety procedures , recognizing the clear intent, encouragement, and dedication of Congress to further the highest degree of safety in air transportation and air commerce, and to maintain the safety vigilance that has evolved in air transportation and air commerce and has c ome to be expected by the traveling and shipping public. See also § 47101(a) [emphasis added]: “It is the policy of the United States

– (1) that the safe operation of the airport and airway system is the highest aviation priority.”] Congress also has affir med the need to meet environmental objectives consistent with maintaining safety and ability of the NAS to accommodate the needs of the nation’s economy and culture.7 It is without question, however, that the FAA wields primary and exclusive jurisdiction o ver air safety and the operation of the NAS.8 This pervasive federal regulatory scheme extends to both aircraft in flight and aircraft - related operations on the ground. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2)(B) - (C); Burbank - Glendale - Pasadena Airport Authority v. City of Los Angeles, 979 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1992) (Federal Aviation Act preempts any regulatory “interference” with the operations of aircraft on the ground); City of Houston v. FAA, 679 F.2d 1184, 1195 (5th Cir. 1982) (FAA has regulatory authori ty “not only [over] the corridors of air traffic, but the use of airports as well”). Response: See Essay (below). FAA_CONFLICT - ELG conflicts with FAA safety and operational requirements Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 3 The inextricable interplay between the ELG technology - based approach and the aircraft and airport operations creates an inherent conflict between FAA’s exclusive authority in the areas of aviation safety and efficient operation of the NAS and EPA’s efforts to use the ELG as a regulatory tool in this instance. Indeed, as detailed throughout these comments, should the EPA proceed with implementation of the ELG, it will create situations where operations within the NAS will be severely affected and force airli nes and airports, in cases where safety otherwise would be compromised by virtue of the ELG, to cease or curtail operations to avoid the unsafe conditions. In such a case of conflict, the law compels that EPA yield in promulgating an ELG. 12 TDD at 2 - 1 (em phasis added). 13 Document - 0107 at 1 - 5 to 1 - 6 (emphasis added). 14 Document - 0107 at 14 - 35 (emphasis added). As noted above, Congress has determined aviation safety to be paramount and has given FAA the exclusive authority to regulate aviation safety and the operation and efficiency of the NAS. Where such mandates exist, even where Congress has given other federal agencies regulatory powers that may overlap, the courts have found preemptive effect in one federal provision over the other where there is a “p lain” or “clear repugnancy” between them,15 which the Supreme Court has held includes cases where two federal provisions are “clearly incompatible.”16 EPA’s use of the ELG, which necessarily is based on aircraft and airport operations - dependent information and sets standards which then implicate aircraft and airport operations, is clearly incompatible with the overriding aviation safety and operations mandates under federal aviation law as implemented by FAA. Response: See Essay (below).381 FAA_CONFLICT - ELG conflicts with FAA safety and operational requirements Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 34 EPA’s failure to consider such a critical issue in the course of selecting the technology basis for treatment of ADF. The treatment reactors at CAK a re 10 feet in diameter and 32 feet in height; at ALB they are 14 feet in diameter and 32 feet in height.107 Obviously, the height of these facilities alone requires that they be located to ensure they do not pose a safety hazard or disrupt air traffic flow patterns.108 But perhaps most notable in the context of this rulemaking EPA fails to acknowledge and account for the potential for treatment facilities that would be required under the Proposed Rule to pose a safety hazard as wildlife (in particular, bird ) attractants. EPA has signed a Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) in which it agreed: that a variety of other land uses (e.g., storm water management facilities, wastewater treatment systems, landfills, golf courses, parks, agricultural or aquacultural facil ities, and landscapes) attract hazardous wildlife and are, therefore, normally incompatible with airports. Accordingly, new, federally - funded airport construction or airport expansion projects near habitats or other land uses that may attract hazardous wi ldlife must conform to the siting criteria established in the FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200 - 33, Section 1 - 3. 109 In the referenced section 1 - 3 of AC 150/5200 - 33,110 FAA recommends that any wildlife attractant (including, as noted in the above MOA, st ormwater management facilities like ponds and stormwater treatment facilities) be placed at least 10,000 feet away from the air operations area (“AOA”) for any airport serving jet aircraft and five statute miles away “if the attractant could cause hazardou s wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace.”111 The FAA is even more definitive with respect to “new wastewater treatment facilities,” in that it “strongly recommends against the construction” of such facilities within 10,000 fee t of the AOA and instructs that “airport operators should voice their opposition to such facilities if they are in proximity to the airport.”112 Given that the Proposed Rule also designates anaerobic fluidized bed reactors (“AFBRs”) as BAT for treatment of ADF and these facilities certainly fall within AC 150/5200 - 33B’s definition of “wastewater treatment facility,”113 the need to account for the possibility of bird strikes resulting from location of AFBRs at airports cannot be avoided. Yet, despite having signed the MOA and relying on documents that reference AC 150/5200 - 33 (and, as discussed below, actually mentioning the issue with respect to aerated ponds), EPA does not address the potential bird strike hazard issue or even list AC 150/5200 - 33 as among t hose it considered in the rulemaking.114 The successful location of AFBRs at two airports, ALB and CAK (and of stormwater detention/retention ponds at several airports around the country), indicate that such concerns can be addressed. At the same time, the recent “Miracle on the Hudson” incident highlights the fact that it is imperative that safety issues are addressed at all airports. This would remain true even if EPA did not propose AFBRs as BAT for the New York airports. Yet, the Agency makes no attempt to explain why AFBRs

– which clearly qualify as “wastewater treatment systems” the Agency has acknowledged are “normally incompatible with airports”

– nonetheless deserve designation as the best available treatment technology. 107 Document - 0834 at Slide 24. 108 See AC 150/5300 - 13, Airport Design, and 14 CFR Part 77 - Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. 109 Memorandum of Agreement Between the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Address Aircraft - Wildlife Strikes, Section I.J. (signed by EPA Assistant Administrator for Water on January 17, 2003) (emphasis added). 110 Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports, reissued as AC 150/5200 - 33B (August 8, 2007). 111 AC 150/5200 - 33B at 1 - 3 and 1 - 4. 112 AC 150/5200 - 33B at 2 - 3(d). 113 Relevant definitions are provided in AC 150/5200 - 33B, Appendix 1 as follows: Air operations area. Any area of an airport used or intended to be used for landing, takeoff, or surface maneuvering of aircraft. An air operations area includes such paved areas or unpaved areas that are used or intended to be used for the unobstructed movement of aircraft in addition to its associated run way, taxiways, or apron. .. . Wastewater treatment facility. Any devices and/or systems used to store, treat, recycle, or reclaim municipal sewage or liquid industrial wastes, including Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW), as382 defined by Section 212 of th e Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92 - 500) as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95 - 576) and the Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 1004). This definition includes any pretreatment involving the reduction of the amount of pollutants, the el imination of pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of pollutant properties in wastewater prior to or in lieu of discharging or otherwise introducing such pollutants into a POTW. (See 40 CFR Section 403.3 (q), (r), & (s)). Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports). Regarding NSPS, a new source must determine, during its planning phase, whether it will need to construct an o n - site wastewater treatment facility, and if so, allocate sufficient space for this facility. During the design stage, wastewater treatment systems can be sited so as to reduce impacts from wildlife on airport operations. O ne of the reasons EPA selected the AFB treatment technology was because it minimizes attraction to birds in comparison to wastewater ponds. Where this type of treatment is currently in use, bird strikes have not been mentioned as a problem. FAA concurred with EPA's reasoning on select ion of this technology, and FAA expressed concern about ponds as potential attractants for birds. FAA_CONFLICT - ELG conflicts with FAA safety and operational requirements Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 1 (MassPort - Boston) EPA is proposi ng to assume the responsibility of requiring airlines to use a specific deicing technology and to quantify the amount of deicing that is adequate (with its proposed 25 - gallon allowance for taxiing). Thus, the Proposed Rule would inappropriately extend EPA’ s regulatory reach from pollution reduction to aviation safety matters. Response: EPA generally agrees with the commenters regarding the proposed requirement to limit deicing for safe taxiing and we have revised the final rule accordingly. The final rule does not limit the amount of ADF sprayed for the purposes of safe taxiing nor does the final rule require an airport to collect and treat ADF applied for safe taxiing purposes. EPA does not require use of specific technologies for deicing aircraft. FAA_CONFLICT - ELG conflicts with FAA safety and operational requirements Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 2 the FAA has issued specific guidelines and standards for the siting, sizing and design of aircraft deicing facilities.65 These require ments provide that aircraft deicing pads are to consist of two distinct areas: (1) an inner area for the parking of aircraft to receive deicing/anti - icing treatment, and (2) an outer area around the aircraft to allow simultaneous treatment by two or more m obile deicing vehicles.66 The FAA has established specific safety and operational requirements for each of these areas based on the use of minimum separation distances and other buffer areas of specific dimensions, to ensure the safe and expedient entry, p arking, deicing and exit of aircraft from the facility, and the safety of the personnel conducting the deicing and anti - icing activities in accordance with the aircraft operator’s FAA - approved Ground Deicing and Anti - icing Program.67 In addition, and signi ficantly, the FAA’s deicing facility requirements expressly incorporate the FAA clearance and separation standards described in Section III.B of this comment letter.68 With regard to number of deicing positions needed, the FAA requires that383 airports where deicing conditions are expected should have deicing facilities with a total deicing/anti icing capacity “that approximates the airport’s peak hour departure rate that the ATCT can manage during icing conditions.”69 Using this departure rate provides a basi s for determining the number of deicing positions required to balance the number of planes departing on one hand and the holdover times of applied deicing/anti - icing fluids on the other, so that, to the extent practicable, applicable holdover times are in effect when pilots receive takeoff clearance. The FAA’s deicing facility requirements also are keyed to ensuring compliance with holdover times, identifying the “primary factor for siting deicing facilities” as the “taxiing time that begins with the start of the last step of the deicing/anti - icing treatment and ends with takeoff clearance, such that the holdover times of fluids are still in effect.”70 At the same time, the FAA takes into account the potential for delay from the use of deicing pads to meet i ts stringent aircraft deicing requirements (discussed in Section V.A above). The FAA deicing pad requirements provide that to maximize departure flows for all departing aircraft, a potential deicing facility site must have enough physical space to allow by pass taxiing 65 For airports that build such facilities using AIP or PFC Program funds, use of these guidelines and standards is mandatory. See FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300 - 14B, Design of Aircraft Deicing Facilities (Feb. 5, 2008) (“FAA Deicing Facility Advisory Circular”), §2, at p.1. To the extent that Boston - Logan would use AIP or PFC Program funds for the construction of one or more aircraft deicing facility, it would be required to treat the FAA deicing facility requirements as applicable and mandato ry. Therefore, for purposes of commenting on the Proposed Rule, Massport addresses these requirements as if they are mandatory for any aircraft deicing facility to be sited, sized, designed and built at Boston - Logan. 66 Id., § 1 - 2(d), at p. 1. 67 For examp le, the width of the aircraft parking area must equal the upper wingspan of the most demanding Airplane Design Group expected to use the deicing pad, and the length must equal the fuselage length of the most demanding aircraft expected to use the pad. See id., § 3 - 1(a), at p. 9. 68 Id., § 2 - 2, at p. 3 (“To ensure aircraft safety, the location and operation of deicing facilities must follow the clearance and separation standards specified in AC 150/5300 - 13, Airport Design. These standards involve airspace, aircraft separations, FAA Technical Operations facilities critical areas, and Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) line - of sight criteria.”). 69 Id. § 2 - 3, at p. 4. 70 Id. § 2 - 5, at p. 5. capability for aircraft not needing treatment, so that the facility can receive aircraft that require treatment while allowing other aircraft to continue unimpeded for departure.71 The Proposed Rule fails to account for FAA standards as an overlay to compliance with the Rule, certainly as applied to established land - restri cted airports. Those airports should not be placed in the position of choosing between the Scylla and Charybdis of compliance with EPA or FAA regulations. The lack of coordination between EPA and the FAA in crafting the Proposed Rule is another reason why EPA should withdraw completely or rewrite the Proposed Rule. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports). The NSPS provisions in the final rule do not conflict with FAA requirements. As discussed in section V.C. of the final rule preamble, safety, space, and operational constraints that may be present at existing airports for all the collection and treatment technologies discuss ed in the rule do not similarly apply to new airports. This is because new airports can be designed to minimize space and logistical constraints that have been identified for retrofits at existing airports. When designing a new airport, the local operating agency plans the site for all needed facilities, such as runways, taxiways, terminal(s) and other components needed to comply with safety and environmental requirements, and this includes deicing facilities. See FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070 - 6B, “Airpor t Master Plans.” Also see Essay (below).384 FAA_CONFLICT - ELG conflicts with FAA safety and operational requirements Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 7 T he three - pad scenario presents the following aviation safety and operational issues: • Because the North Pad would be located within the Runway 15L RSA and RPZ, operation of the North Pad would require Runway 15L - 33R to be closed for arrivals and departure s. • Because the North Pad would be located in the Runway 15L RSA and Runway OFA, all equipment used within the boundaries of the RSA and Runway OFA would have to be portable. Additionally, permanent objects located on the North Pad but within the boundari es of Runway 15L RSA and Runway OFA could protrude no higher than three inches above the ground surface unless fixed by function, and would have to be mounted on frangible couplings that would shear at a height of three inches above the ground surface. • O peration of the North Pad would require aircraft to taxi across Runway 15R - 33L, which is used extensively during northwest and southeast wind conditions. This configuration would increase the risk of runway incursions and potentially cause delays for aircr aft waiting to cross Runway 15R - 33L to taxi to the North Pad.114 [FOOTNOTE: 114 See id. at pp. 10 - 11.] • Operation of the East Pad would require aircraft to taxi across parallel Runways 4L22R and 4R - 22L, which together comprise the runway configuration mo st used during low visibility operations. This deicing pad location would increase the risk of runway incursions and potentially cause delays for aircraft waiting to cross the two parallel runways to taxi to the East Pad.115 [FOOTNOTE: 115 See id. at p. 11 .] Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports). Also see Essay (below). FAA_CONFLICT - ELG conflicts with FAA safety and oper ational requirements Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 4 (PA NY/NJ) Aircraft deicing fluid use is controlled by the airlines under strict regulation by FAA. EPA treats airports as if they are in total control of aircraft deicing fluid usage and operations.12 At the Port Authority airports, deicing fluids may be discharged through the storm water drainage system, which is maintained by the Authority, but the airlines purchase, apply, and track the use of aircraft deicing fluids. EPA’s Proposed Rule would force the airport operator to determine the collection threshold and re lated compliance requirements on the basis of aircraft deicing data use, but this key determination would rely on data collected and reported by the airlines. As discussed in our later comments, the reliance on airline data results in major inconsistencie s between the EPA’s data and the Port Authority’s data. EPA cannot expect to regulate an “industry” (the airport) using compliance data (aircraft deicing fluid usage by airlines) over which the regulated entity has no control. Regarding FAA requirements fo r deicing fluid use and mandated holdover time requirements, the Port Authority maintains that the Proposed Rule is flawed in that these important areas of concern have not been addressed by EPA. Response: EPA did not base any final requirements on ADF usage. For existing sources, see response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports). For NSPS, the scope of the final rule is not based on deicing fl uid usage, but on the location of the airport and the anticipated number of departures. The rule does not require use of a specific amount of aircraft deicing fluid; new sources must collect at least 60 percent of available ADF. See § 449.11.385 FAA_CONFLIC T - ELG conflicts with FAA safety and operational requirements Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 14 Safety is the ultimate consideration. The airlines (and in particular the pilots) have a key responsibility for flight safety, including the dete rmination that the deicing of a particular aircraft is required or if it has been done adequately. This safety mandate overrides any restriction over the use of deicing fluid that the Port Authority might try to impose on the airlines. It also overrides an y restriction proposed by EPA. The Proposed Rule does not mention or allow for the discretion given to the airlines with respect to flight safety. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform req uirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports). See response to IATA, 1218.1, #3 (above). (Final rule contains no requirements limiting the amount ADF used by airports) Also see Essay (below). FAA_CONFLICT - ELG conflicts with FAA safet y and operational requirements Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 38 Runway use patterns and airport configurations raise issues regarding crossings of active runways. At many airports in the U.S., there are primary runway(s) that allow for aircra ft to arrive and depart consistent with the predominant wind direction(s), and crosswind runway(s) that are used only when required by occasional changes in wind direction. At those airports, aircraft may have to cross a crosswind runway to reach a primary runway for takeoff, but the crosswind runway has little or no activity. At JFK and LGA, however, high activity levels, noise abatement procedures, and regional airspace constraints require that aircraft use multiple runways (including what would be consid ered the crosswind runway(s) at other airports) for takeoffs and landings. Annual runway use patterns for all three airports are enclosed as Appendix C. Based on these numbers and a review of hourly runway use data, the following observations can be made a bout runway use at JFK and LGA. In recent years, there have been 28 combinations of runway use at JFK.77 Some of the typical runway use patterns include the following: 78 4L departures, 4R arrivals 4L departures, 4L and 4R arrivals 4L and 31L departures, 4 L and 4R arrivals 4L and 31L departures, 4R and 31R arrivals 4L, 13L and 13R departures, 4R arrivals 22R departures, 22L arrivals 22R departures, 22L and 22R arrivals 22R and 31L departures, 22L arrivals 22R and 31L departures, 22L and 22R arrivals 13L and 13R departures, 13L and 22L arrivals 13R departures, 13L, 22L and 22R arrivals 31L departures, 31R arrivals 31L departures, 31L and 31R arrivals These patterns indicate that three (and sometimes four) runways often are used together, with two of the runwa ys used for a bank of arrivals (or departures) and the other runway(s) used for departures (or arrivals). There are 12 basic combinations of runway use at LGA. Typical runway use patterns include the following:79 13 departures, 4 arrivals 13 departures, 22 arrivals 31 departures, 4 arrivals 31 departures, 22 arrivals 4 departures, 13 arrivals 4 departures, 31 arrivals A single runway is used less often for both arrivals and departures (for example, departures and arrivals on 31). LGA has only two runways; m ost of the time, both runways are active. These data are presented to show that at any one time, multiple runways may be active. Any runway could be active at a particular time, presenting a potential constraint for the siting of deicing pads. As indicated by our previous comments, requiring aircraft to make multiple crossings of active runways raises operational and safety issues, and can lead to an unacceptable increase in aircraft delays. The runway crossing issue is made more complicated at JFK and LGA because of the airports’ runway configurations. At JFK, three of the four runways intersect; the fourth runway is outside of (beyond) the U shape created by the three intersecting runways; and the passenger terminals are within386 the U. This runway and passe nger terminal configuration means that at least one runway crossing is required to get to six of the eight runway ends. At LGA, the two runways intersect, and a runway crossing is required to reach Runway 13 (which is used for more than 40 percent of annua l departures). This information indicates that numerous aircraft already have to cross active runways at JFK and LGA.80 Deicing pads would not be sited in locations that would require additional runway crossings. Further, visibility on the ground is often limited during winter storms, raising the potential for safety problems. In addition, deicing can occur during minor winter events and dry weather, when activity levels and runway use patterns are similar to those during normal weather. Therefore, the siti ng of deicing pads must take the runway crossing issue into account. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports). FAA_CONFLICT - ELG conflicts with FAA safety and operational requirements Comment Info: E PA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1236.1 - excerpts 1 and 2 United Airlines endorses and adopts by incorporation the written comments on the Proposed Rule submitted by the Air Transport Association of America, Inc. (ATA) and dated February 26, 2010. The following comments specifically address and further emphasize two major themes of those extensive comments. .. ATA's comments accurately reflect United's view that, as written, the proposal encroaches on the existing and legally - required process for making decisions that affect flight safety and the safety of aircra ft ground operations. These decisions -- including, without limitation, where to position aircraft for deicing; how much deicing fluid may be used to accomplish FAA - mandated pre - taxi deicing; requirements for Glycol Recovery Vehicles (GRVs) operating near aircraft; requirements to utilize centralized deicing pads for 100% of departures at certain airports; the design characteristics of such pads; and the practical requirement to place treatment facilities on airport property without site - specific review of the compatibility of such facilities with aircraft operations -- implicate issues that are legitimately within the province of the FAA. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1

– 14 (above) and see Essay (below). Regarding NSPS requirements , see response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 2 (above). The ADF collection requirements in the final rule do not waive or override any FAA requirements for site - specific planning and approvals. FAA_CONFLICT - ELG conflicts with FAA safety and operatio nal requirements Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1236.1 - excerpts 5 and 6 Second only to safety, managing the capacity of the National Airspace System is a priority and a responsibility of the FAA. We believe the Agency's analysis falls short of captu ring and accounting for the complex impacts that will impact airlines, such as United, and the National Airspace System by the proposed re - shuffling of deicing practices at airports throughout the country. This is a particularly sensitive issue with respec t to large, congested and site - constrained airports. Additional congestion at these airports could result in significant operational consequences through out the National Airspace System.387 Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports). Neither commenters nor FAA indicated the pavement deicing discharge requirements will have any affects on the management of the National Airspace Sy stem. Regarding new sources, FAA has stated that deicing pads, when designed properly, often improve traffic flow and reduce delays associated with aircraft deicing. [preamble, sec. V.B.3] FAA_CONFLICT - ELG conflicts with FAA safety and operational requ irements Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 53 (2) EPA Ignores Existing Deicing Pad Design Guidance. FAA AC 150/5300 - 14B provides standards, specifications, and guidance for designing aircraft deicing facilities. While the AC does not constitute a “compliance” regulation per se, airports relying on Airport Improvement Program (AIP) or Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) funding for aircraft deicing facilities must adhere to its standards. The AC includes detailed guidance for determining the appropria te size, location, environmental, and operational needs to be considered in the design of aircraft deicing facilities while maximizing deicing capacity, safety, and operational efficiency. In the Proposed Rule, however, EPA has inaccurately condensed this 31 page technical AC into a few sentences of required specifications. In doing so, the Agency has over - simplified a complicated, site - specific planning decision, ignoring critical safety and operational considerations. EPA has created a “no - win” situation in which airports achieve compliance with EPA’s proposed standards and forfeit AIP or PFC funding, or violate EPA’s standards (potentially creating criminal liability) to meet FAA’s standards. This is unconscionable. While some of EPA’s proposed specifica tions parallel existing FAA guidance (e.g., pad length and width), other FAA standards are either ignored by EPA or are altered in EPA’s prescription. For example, EPA requires that facilities be sized to accommodate the airport’s peak hourly departure rat e, whereas FAA guidance states that “airports should have deicing facilities with a deicing/anti - icing capacity that approximates the airport’s peak hour departure rate that the [air traffic control tower] can manage during icing conditions.”50 This is a c ritically important distinction in sizing deicing facilities. Response: See responses to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports) and 1232.1, #102 (PA NY&NJ) (code CDP_OP_IMPACT) Also see Essay (below). For new sources, the technical specifications at §449.20(a)(1) associated with centralized deicing pads do not include the items described above, nor do they prevent an airport from meeting FAA specifi cations. EPA notes that the final NSPS requirements include three ways to demonstrate compliance, only one of which includes any technical specifications. At any point should FAA requirements conflict with these NSPS specifications, the other two alterna tives may be utilized. FAA_CONFLICT - ELG conflicts with FAA safety and operational requirements Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 155 Wildlife Attractants Must Be Minimized Ensuring safe aircraft operations is a critical issue for U.S. airport s. As shown by last year’s events associated with the US Airways Flight 1549 landing in the Hudson River after a double - engine ingestion of Canada geese, wildlife can present dangerous risks to aviation. Airports work aggressively to mitigate those risks t hrough multi - faceted approaches specific to388 the wildlife issues of each specific airport. One universal approach includes minimizing wildlife attractants on or near airport property. The stormwater storage needs associated with the proposed collection and treatment requirements create a potentially hazardous wildlife attractant at airports. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200 - 33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports, identifies water management facilities such as stormwater retention and settling ponds as activities that can attract large numbers of potentially hazardous wildlife. FAA provides specific requirements and recommendations for airports to adhere to in order to minimize the wildlife hazards associated with such stormwater facilities. The se include a maximum detention period of 48 hours where possible, lining to prevent vegetation that provides nesting habitat, and physical barriers (which require FAA approval) to deter hazardous wildlife. These recommendations also extend to off - airport f acilities. The additional stormwater storage that will be required under the Proposed Rule may create problematic wildlife attractant issues. Response: For new sources, the final rule does not require airports to construct ponds or other facilities that could be wildlife attractants. Airports that determine they need additional storage capacity for collected available ADF can use above - ground or underground tanks, either on airport grounds or piped to nearby off - site facilities. EPA has accounted for the se storage costs in its economic analyses. Also see response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1

– 34 (above). FAA_CONFLICT - ELG conflicts with FAA safety and operational requirements Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 6 In the Proposed Rule, EPA requires technical specifications regarding the size of a deicing pad required to demonstrate compliance. At SLC, deicing pad location and design are based on safety, efficiency and operational considerations. Also numerous fleet configurations are conside red when determining the appropriate deicing pad size. The size, number and location of deicing pads are site - specific determinations and EPA should not establish specifications in the proposed rule. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)has extensive regul ations and guidance on how and where aircraft are deiced. For example, FAA's Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300 - 14B provides specifications and guidance for designing aircraft deicing facilities. Airports are required to follow the FAA specifications in order to be eligible for various sources of funding. Thus, EPA should defer to FAA's deicing requirements and specifications. Response: See response to comment 1240.1 - #53 (above). Essay - Comment Code FAA_CONFLICT Comment A Deicing ELG Necessarily Would Conflict With the Existing Comprehensive and Exclusive Regulatory Scheme Governing Aviation Safety and Operations. : 1. Whether the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) has “primary and exclusive” jurisdiction over airport operations, thus limiting EPA’s authority to promulgate the final ELG. An industry commenter argues that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), under the Federal Aviation Act, has “primary and exclusive” jurisdiction over airport operations to the exclusion of EPA. The comm enter relies upon a series of cases which hold that federal law, such as the Federal Aviation389 Act, pre - empts State law in the area of airport operations. In addition, the commenter argues, the fact that ELG standards are implemented through the States act ing pursuant to State law compounds the problem, because State permit writers lack expertise in matters of airport/aircraft safety and are unfamiliar with the complexity and sensitivity of aircraft operations within the NAS. The commenter asserts that Sta te permit writers, when acting under the auspices of State law, do not have authority to affect aircraft operations either in the air or on the ground. See comments of Air Transport Association, EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 (“Comment Letter”) at 6 - 13. The c ommenter further argues that, unlike the NPDES program in place up to now, the ELG for deicing fluid would in fact impermissibly interfere with the FAA’s safety requirements for each airport by interfering with operations on the ground. The commenter argu es that the FAA has exclusive authority over both operations in the air and operations on the ground. The commenter notes that each airport has a unique layout and unique safety concerns, including climate, the amount of deicing fluid needed, the number o f airlines, the fleet mix of each airline, and availability of additional land. The commenter appears particularly concerned about the reliance in the proposed regulations on centralized deicing pads, which “may potentially create or reduce departure delay s,” depending upon an airport’s runway and taxiway configuration. Comment Letter at 9. Thus, according to the commenter, while EPA may have the authority to regulate airports and address environmental concerns, regulation by an ELG that requires the use o f specific technology, particularly deicing pads, is impermissibly broad and will “effectively mandat[e] technology solutions that necessarily and improperly implicate operations when applied.” Comment Letter at 11. The commenter claims that this mandate of technology will interfere with the safety requirements placed on airports by the FAA, and therefore is incompatible with the statutory mandate of the Federal Aviation Act. Response: There is no jurisdictional conflict between the FAA’s statutory manda te under the Federal Aviation Act and the EPA’s regulation of deicing fluid via today’s ELG. Under the case law, potentially conflicting statutory mandates between federal agencies should be read as effective, and to the extent possible, harmonized, excep t in cases of an “irreconcilable conflict.” The most often - cited expression of the principle that two federal statutes should be read, whenever possible, in harmony, is the Supreme Court’s decision in Morton v. Mancari , where the court wrote that “[w]hen two federal statutes are capable of co existence, it is the clear duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intent to the contrary, to regard each as effective.” Morton v. Mancari , 417 U.S. 535, 550

– 51 (1974) (holding that a statute requ iring preferential hiring of Native Americans for jobs at BIA was not implicitly repealed by, and did not conflict with, the recently passed Civil Rights Act banning racial discrimination in hiring). See also Shanty Town Associates v. Environmental Protec tion Agency , 843 F.2d 782, 793 (4th Cir. 1988) (“our first obligation, when presented with a possible conflict between two federal statutes, is always to attempt to harmonize them”) (citing Morton v. Mancari ). The Supreme Court has noted that it is “a car dinal principle of statutory construction that repeals by implication [of a later statute by an earlier, apparently conflicting statute] are not favored,” Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 468 (1982) (quotations and citations omitted). The f inding of an irreconcilable conflict between statutory provisions appears to be a high bar to cross. For example, in another case cited by the commenter, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing , 551 U.S. 264, 267 (2007), the Court’s holding, that th e federal securities law implicitly precluded the application of antitrust law in that particular case, was premised on the Court’s finding that there was a “plain repugnancy” between the two statutes when applied in that case. The Federal Aviation Act states that “the safe operation of the airport and airway system is the highest aviation priority,” 49 USC § 47101 (a)(1), while it also states as federal policy “that airport development projects under this subchapter provide for the protection and enhanc ement of natural resources and the quality of the environment of the United States,” § 47101 (a)(6). This provision further states that to carry out the policy of subsection (a)(6), the FAA shall consult with the EPA Administrator about any390 project includ ed in a project grant application “involving the location of an airport or runway” that may have a significant effect on natural resources, including fish and wildlife, natural, scenic, and recreation assets, water and air quality , or another factor affect ing the environment.” 49 U.S.C. § 47101 (h)(1) - (4) (2009) (emphasis added). Thus, the Federal Aviation Act expressly calls for certain consultation with EPA over environmental and water quality protection. Accordingly, the requirements of the Clean Water Act and the Federal Aviation Act do not demonstrate an “irreconcilable conflict” or “plain repugnancy” with regard to the control of deicing waste streams set forth in today’s final effluent guidelines and s tandards. EPA and the FAA are authorized to work together to address the effects of airport operations on the environment. See City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal , 411 U.S. 624, 629 (1973) (holding that under the Noise Control Act of 1972, the FAA, i n consultation with EPA, has the authority to regulate airport noise to the exclusion of State and local authorities). It was the “pervasive control” vested in both EPA and the FAA over airport noise regulation under the statutory scheme that led the Court to hold that federal authority pre - empted State and local noise control ordinances. Id . at 638. There was no conflict presented in City of Burbank between EPA and FAA acting in their own respective statutory spheres with regard to airports. The commenter , however, asserts that there is in fact an incompatibility between the ELG here (as proposed) and the aviation safety and operations mandates under federal aviation law. The (proposed) ELG, it argues, would set standards that implicate aircraft and airpo rt operations. However, the commenter points out that its primary concern is with a uniform rule that affects airport operations nationwide, and not with NPDES permitting per se at airports: We are not saying that any attempt by EPA to regulate environ mental impacts from aviation is preempted as being “clearly incompatible.” In fact, EPA has long used the NPDES program under the CWA to address runoff from deicing operations. That the NPDES program does not pose the incompatibility of the ELG almost cer tainly is due to the site - specific analysis that goes into determining what water management practices make the most sense at each, individual airport. In contrast, the ELG would set a uniform, national, technology - based standard. (Comment letter at 10). EPA is aware of the “complex and delicate balance of airport - specific safety and operational concerns” that are mentioned in the commenter’s letter, including the fact that each airport has a different climate, layout, and fleet mix, and a variety of a irport - specific factors such as amount of deicing fluid, fleet mix, land availability, and effects on departures. See Comment Letter at 8 - 9 (citing excerpts from the rulemaking record). Airline safety is, of course, the paramount concern. The final ELGs, however, do not create safety concerns. Many of the commenter’s concerns centered on EPA’s proposal to set a BAT requirement based on CDP and GRV technologies to collect spent ADF and AFB technology to treat it. Since the proposal, however, EPA has scale d back the requirements of the rule, and the final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection (i.e., CDPs or GRVs) or treatment (i.e., AFB) for existing sources. EPA’s reasons for not setting uniform BAT requirements in the rule for ADF are described in the preamble, and center largely on the consideration that the distinctive configuration and operations of each airport make it more appropriate to identify best technologies for ADF capture and treatment on a case - by - case basis based on BPJ. As a result, the BAT requirements of the final rule cover only the type of fluid used for deicing airfields, which is an issue that does not implicate the type of site - specific operational and safety issues that are raised by the deicing of aircraft. (N or are such issues raised by today’s NSPS rule, as we explain elsewhere in the record.) Eliminating uniform regulation of ADF collection and treatment in the final rule addresses the commenter’s concerns that the final rule represents an incursion by EPA into the FAA’s authority over airport operations and safety. EPA also notes that, with respect to the requirements in the final rule, FAA has not expressed any safety concerns nor indicated any conflict with its own requirements.391 In regard to the commen ter’s additional point regarding authorized States, the fact that States implement a federal scheme does not bring the federal scheme into the realm of State law that is pre - empted by federal regulations. Authorized State programs under the CWA should not be analogized to the kinds of State and local regulations which can be pre - empted by a federal statute or a pervasive federal regulatory scheme. Federal pre - emption of a State law that directly conflicts or interferes with a pervasive federal scheme is a different matter from the question of whether one federal law (the Federal Aviation Act) can co - exist with another federal law (the Clean Water Act) that is carried out by a State under federal authorization. The cases cited by the commenter involved feder al pre - emption of State laws and were not considering the question of State implementation of a federal statutory scheme. 2. Whether the final rule is inconsistent with the Airline Deregulation Act. In addition, the commenter cites Morales v. Trans World Airlines , 504 U.S. 374 (1992), for the proposition that language in the Airline Deregulation Act (“ADA”), 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1), expresses a broad preemptive purpose under which even indirect regulation of airlines by generally applicable State laws is preempted if those laws have a significant effect on services of air carriers. The commenter argues that the ELG provisions must be interpreted and applied consistent with the broad preemptive purposes of the ADA. Response: The final rule is not inconsis tent with the ADA’s pre - emption of State laws relating to air carriers’ rates, routes, or services. The cases cited by commenter, which involve the issue of ADA pre - emption of State laws concerning advertising of fares (Morales ) and consumer fraud ( Americ an Airlines v. Wolens , 513 U.S. 219 (1995)), do not apply to the consideration of whether two federal agencies may simultaneously regulate an industry. Unlike federal pre - emption of State law, which is the subject addressed by the ADA, two federal regulatory schemes should be read to harmonize except in cases of clear incompatibility or plain repugnance, as discussed above. In any event, the final rule, as noted, does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. Specifically, it does not (as was proposed) identify CDPs as BAT for part of the industry, which is the t echnology that the commenter appears to be most concerned about with regard to possible disruptive effects on airline safety, flight times, fares, or other areas regulated by the FAA. The final rule thus minimizes the potential effect of the ELG on air ca rrier services. FAA_INPUT - Need FAA Input Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1201.1 - 3 (Boeing) Boeing suggests that the EPA should work with the FAA & DOD to evaluate the practicality of and provide guidance on: - glycol recovery vehicles at gates where deicing operations take place, - airports utilizing plug and pump technologies and - infrared deicing pads (as a means to achieve the same result withou t the use of environmentally harmful chemicals). The other means of dealing with these fluids (once they become surface runoff) are both expensive and massive undertakings. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING) and EPA - HQ - OW - 2 004 - 0038 - 1204.1 - 2 (Grimes) (code MILITARY) (The Agency did not include military facilities in the scope of the final rule.) The NSPS requirement for ADF collection in the final rule is based on deicing pads. EPA consulted with the FAA throughout develo pment of this rulemaking and they concurred with the final rule.392 FAA_INPUT - Need FAA Input Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1201.1 - 4 Boeing further recommends that the EPA coordinate with the FAA, SAE and DOD to provide airport operators with guidan ce on environmentally acceptable materials that will not adversely impact aircraft material or performance. The EPA may also wish to consider the requirements established [by] EASA for deicer and anti - icer products on commercial aircraft. Boeing has extens ive experience in evaluating the impacts of deicer / antiicer materials under its internal Boeing standard (D6 - 17487), and stands ready to assist the EPA in understanding the associated issues. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1204.1 - 2 (G rimes) (code MILITARY) (The Agency did not include military facilities in the scope of the final rule.) and EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1201.1 - 1 (Code FAA_CONFLICT) (Boeing) (The final rule does not require the use of any particular pavement deicer product or aircraft deicer product; coordination of product development with SAE standards is the responsibility of the industry participants.) EPA consulted with the FAA throughout the development of this rulemaking . Moreover, with respect to the requirements in the final rule, FAA has not expressed any safety concerns nor have they indicated any conflict with their requirements . FAA_INPUT - Need FAA Input Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 9 (ATA) The Proposed Rule Needs Such Extensive and Fundament al Input from FAA that Re - Proposal or Publication of a Notice of Data Availability Subject to Public Comment Will Be Required As further detailed throughout these Comments, there are significant operational and safety concerns raised by the Proposed Rule. The Record demonstrates that EPA has not had the benefit of significant input of the FAA on the appropriateness of any of the proposed regulatory measures, nor has there been any meaningful opportunity for the aviation industry or the public to provide co mment on any views that the FAA might wish to offer. Thus, EPA must seek and incorporate into the record the detailed input of FAA, which then must be made subject to comment by interested stakeholders. At the very least, EPA should restart this process th rough a NODA. If EPA follows this course, its analytical approach will need to be expanded to extend beyond the set of data points it has drawn from a very limited number of sites in order to address site - specific variability inherent in this industry in a meaningful and reasoned manner. Indeed, as more fully explained hereafter in these comments, should the Agency attempt to complete this rulemaking it is essential to reasoned decision - making that the regulation reflect and accommodate variability across t he industry. So too, the Proposed Rule needs such fundamental and extensive revisions that it would violate notice and comment requirements for EPA to proceed without re - proposal or publication of a NODA subject to public notice and comment. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). EPA consulted with FAA in development of the proposed and final rules. FAA provided little technical information to be added to the record since the time of the proposal. However, FAA personnel did provide their views on the types of operational and safety concerns raised by this commenter and others with respect to the proposed ADF collection and treatment requirements for existing dischargers, and these FAA concerns largely echoed those raised by the commenters. In light of these concerns and other information, EPA has changed course from the proposal and the final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or393 treatment by existing dischargers. Therefore there is no need for a re - p roposal or NODA. FAA_INPUT - Need FAA Input Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 30 (AAAE) We would urge the EPA to work closely with the FAA to ensure that what the EPA is proposing is congruent with FAA’s construction/design of deicing facilit ies. FAA provides the industry with standards, specifications, and guidance for designing aircraft deicing facilities and should correspond with the EPA ’s entire proposal regarding this matter. The “Role of Deicing Facility” as provided for in FAA’s Advis ory Circular (AC) 150/5300 - 14B, Design of Aircraft Deicing Facilities, issued on February 05, 2008, (Section 1 - 1.a) “should, to the extent practicable, meet the needs of air carriers, as outlined in FAA approved aircraft ground deicing/anti - icing programs, and all other aviation community users. A key element in this effort is designing a facility that is efficient and offers users operational flexibility. Coordination of an airport authority’s Snow and Ice Control Plan and user’s ground deicing/anti - icing programs, with input from the FAA, will ensure icing conditions affecting the safety of flight are better met.” Many coordination efforts must be made in order to ensure all stakeholders are not only efficient with operations but must also provide for oper ational flexibility. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). EPA has consulted with FAA in development of the final rule. FAA has confirmed that the final rule is not in conflict with any of its standards, specifications or g uidance regarding aircraft and airport deicing. The section of the rule preamble discussing New Source Performance Standards explicitly refers to FAA's Advisory Circular on Airport Master Planning. FAA_INPUT - Need FAA Input Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 200 4 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 13 (PA NY/NJ) The FAA has many functions at our airports, its primary one being safe and efficient aircraft operations. They operate the airport traffic control towers (ATCT) that control the aircraft movement at our airports, including runway use. They assign the use of the airspace around our airports. They build, install, and operate the navigational aids at the airports. Importantly for the Proposed Rule, the FAA promulgates standards on airport design that directly relate to the infe asibility of centralized deicing pads at our airport facilities. Based on our review of the Proposed Rule and its supporting documentation, nowhere is it stated or otherwise evident that the EPA consulted with FAA regarding airport operations, airport desi gn standards, FAR Part 77 requirements, or FAR Part 139 requirements, and how they would affect (and be affected by) the Proposed Rule. The Port Authority maintains that the EPA cannot finalize this rule because the FAA, the main federal agency with oversi ght of airports and airport safety, was not adequately consulted during the promulgation of the Proposed Rule. We have no indication that FAA Airports, Air Traffic, Flight Safety, Flight Standards, or other division personnel were consulted during the proc ess of promulgating the Proposed Rule. Response: EPA consulted with FAA during the development of the proposed and final rules, and FAA has concurred with the final rule.394 FAA_INPUT - Need FAA Input Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 25 FAA personnel were not consulted. The ERG memorandum does not include any references to consultation with FAA personnel. Had they been consulted, FAA Airports Division, Technical Operations, and Flight Standards Offices staff would have provided essential knowledge and input regarding the design and operational requirements for centralized deicing pads, and important input regarding the potential issues and constraints related to the use of centralized pads at the Port Authority airports. There is no indica tion anywhere in the record that FAA was consulted regarding this critical component of the Proposed Rule. The lack of EPA’s involvement of FAA in reviewing potential locations and related deicing pad obligations and requirements is a fundamental flaw in E PA’s Proposed Rule and commands that the Agency obtain future FAA concurrence with regard to any final deicing ELG. Use of FAA standards was inadequate. The ERG memorandum includes one reference to the key FAA Advisory Circular (“AC”) on centralized deicin g pads, FAA AC 150/5300 - 14B, Design of Aircraft Deicing Facilities.42 That reference is to language in Section 2 - 5(d) of the Advisory Circular regarding the use of existing taxiing routes for deicing facilities. (We believe that the AC language is misinter preted, as discussed in our later comments.) There are no references to the numerous standards, specifications, or guidance in the Advisory Circular. In addition, the memorandum does not include any references to the standards in FAA Advisory Circulars 150 /5300 - 13, Airport Design, or 150/5320 - 5, Surface Drainage Design, which are both referenced in AC 150/5300 - 14B. Use of those and other applicable standards, even at a basic level, would have yielded essential information regarding the constraints to locati ng centralized deicing pads at the Port Authority airports. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). Contrary to the commenter’s statement, EPA has consulted with FAA throughout development of the rule including t he final rule, and FAA has concurred. FAA_INPUT - Need FAA Input Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 40 These points would seem obvious to a person with knowledge of airport design and FAA standards and requirements, but we have included them in our comments b ecause the sites identified in the ERG memorandum raise all of these issues. It is evident that ERG did not consult with FAA, nor did it exhibit the knowledge and expertise in airfield design required to propose feasible potential deicing pad locations. Pe rhaps the EPA assumed that the existing taxiway system could be modified to accommodate a deicing pad. On major portions of our airfields, though, the lack of land and the locations of existing runways and other facilities prevent such modifications. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1

– 25 (above). FAA_INPUT - Need FAA Input Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 88 FAA was not consulted. The ERG memorandum does not include any references to consultation with FAA personnel. F AA Airports Division, Technical Operations, and Flight Standards Offices staff has395 essential knowledge regarding the factors

– potential legal constraints and operational issues

– affecting the design and operational requirements (and thus costs) for deici ng pad systems. Without input from FAA on critical legal and operations issues, this rulemaking process is flawed and cannot be finalized. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1

– 25 (above). FAA_INPUT - Need FAA Input Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 124 In its Proposed Rule, EPA treads on FAA authority regarding deicing operations, the movement of aircraft, structural limitations associated with safe ground operations, and other areas in which Congress has delegated autho rity directly to the FAA. This result, we understand, is due to EPA and FAA failing to communicate and coordinate while EPA was developing the proposal. If EPA decides to pursue national standards through ELG standards, it must engage FAA and obtain approv al from FAA related to the potential impacts on airports prior to publishing a proposed rule in the Federal Register. That process should include frequent interaction with air transportation industry representatives. Response: EPA consulted extensively with air transportation industry representatives prior to publication of the proposed rule and also met with industry representatives post - proposal. (See DCN 01292.) EPA consulted with FAA in development of the proposed and final rules. Also see response to EPA - HQ - OW 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1 - 2 (IATA) (code FAA_Conflict) (The aviation industry is subject to other federal laws; specifically, wastewater discharges from airports are subject to the CWA.) FAA_INPUT - Need FAA Input Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 003 8 - 1234.1 - 4 (ALPA) We do not believe that EPA has sufficiently coordinated with the FAA in developing this NPRM. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300 - 14B, Design of Aircraft Deicing Facilities, provides standards, specifications and guidance for designi ng aircraft deicing facilities. To ensure aircraft safety, the location and operation of deicing facilities must follow the clearance and separation standards specified in AC 150/5300 - 13, Airport Design. These standards involve airspace, aircraft separatio ns, object clearance criteria, and Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) line - of - sight criteria. The AC clearly outlines the operational and safety requirements and considerations that must be accounted for when placing a CDP on the airport. Response: S ee response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING) and EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 30 (above). FAA_INPUT - Need FAA Input Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1234.1 - 7 Coordinate with FAA Flight Standards and Airport Standards offices to evaluate t he operational and safety impact the proposed CDP location requirement will have, not only on deicing operations involving an aircraft at the gate, on the ramp, on a taxiway, and at the departure end of the runway, but on all airport flight and ground oper ations.396 Response: EPA has consulted with FAA in development of the final rule. See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING) and EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1236.1

– 5 (United Airlines)(code FAA_Conflict) (deicing pads do not generate delays) and EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 30 (above). FAA_INPUT - Need FAA Input Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 2 (ACI) This is particularly troubling and is compounded by our belief that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has not been adequately engaged by EPA in this process and the arbitrary assumptions that provide the foundation for many of the Proposed Rule’s m ost significant conclusions. Response: EPA consulted with the FAA throughout the development of this rulemaking. Moreover, with respect to the requirements in the final rule, FAA has not expressed any safety concerns nor have they indicated any conflic t with their requirements. FAA_INPUT - Need FAA Input Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 55 Overall, FAA AC 150/5300 - 14B is the standard reference for centralized deicing facility specifications. If EPA believes changes to that document are nece ssary, they should be coordinated with FAA, rather than force a confrontation through competing regulations in which airports are stuck in the middle. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING) and EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 30 (above). FDF_VAR - FDF Variances Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 23 and 24 (MassPort - Boston) The lack of available land for additional development or expansion at Boston - Logan makes it impossible for Massport to site or build enough centralized deicing pad or deicing runoff storage or treatment capacity to be able to comply with the Proposed Rule. If EPA promulgates a final rule that requires centralized deicing pads as BAT for spent ADF collection, Boston - Logan will have a compelling case for an FDF variance, because Boston - Logan’s “land availability, and configuration as they relate to [its] equi pment or facilities” will constitute, in the words of the United States Supreme Court, a “relevant factor[]” that was not “taken sufficiently 190 33 U.S.C. § 1311(n)(1)(A). Congress added § 301(n) in 1987 to codify EPA’s preexisting FDF variance procedure. In adding the new language, Congress emphasized that the FDF variance serves as “a ‘safety valve’ to the categorical statutory scheme, allowing EPA to address plant - specific variations through a separate administrative process outside of national rulemaki ng.” Chemical Manufacturer’s Ass’n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 222 (5th Cir. 1989 (citing H.R.Rep. No. 189, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 26 (1985).191 40 C.F.R. § 125.31(d)(3), (5), (6). In addition, EPA may grant an FDF variance only if compliance with the national li mits would result in either (a) “[a] removal cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost considered during development of the national limits,” or (b) “[a] non - water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements) fundamentally more397 adve rse than the impact considered during development of the national limits.” Id. § 125.31(b)(3). 192 In order to qualify for an FDF variance, a discharger’s variance application must be “based solely on information and supporting data submitted to the Admini strator during rulemaking” (or “information and supporting data the applicant did not have a reasonable opportunity to submit during such rulemaking”). 33 U.S.C. § 1311(n)(1)(B)(i), (ii). Massport believes that this comment letter and all of the informatio n and supporting data submitted to EPA herewith provide more than sufficient grounds for EPA to grant Boston - Logan an FDF variance if requested. Massport nonetheless reserves its right to submit additional information and supporting data to EPA in accordan ce with applicable law. into account in [EPA’s] framing that requirement originally, and that ... properly considered, would have justified

– indeed, required

– the creation of a subcategory” for airports as space - constrained as Boston - Logan.193 [FOOTNOTE: 193 Chemical Mfrs. Ass’n v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 470 U.S. 116, 130 (1985).] In short, if EPA issues such a final rule, its granting an FDF variance to Boston - Logan will be the only means by which it will be able “to remedy categories wh ich were not accurately drawn because information was either not available to or not considered by the Administrator in setting the original categories and limitations.”194 [FOOTNOTE: 194 Id.] EPA asserts that it considered whether to establish a separate subcategory within the Airport Deicing Category based on “availability of land to install collection systems,” and determined that such a subcategory is unnecessary because “EPA’s analysis indicates that airports have sufficient land to install deicing pad s.”195 However, the only document in the Administrative Record Docket for the Proposed Rule that may reasonably be described as an “analysis” that relates to “availability of land to install collection systems” is the February 7, 2008 memorandum from ERG t o EPA entitled “Estimated Deicing Pad Areas and Deicing Pad Space Evaluation” (the “ERG Memorandum”).196 Instead of taking a technically grounded approach to the sizing and siting of centralized deicing pads at airports that may have prohibitive space cons traints, the ERG Memorandum is based on an overly simplistic, and ultimately technically indefensible, formula for determining the number and size of deicing pads. First, a single deicing pad will not suffice for the operational needs of airports with vari able winds. In fact, EPA acknowledges that Pittsburgh, Denver, and Detroit Metro International Airports

– those airports that EPA attests already can meet the Proposed Rule’s spent ADF collection requirements through the use of centralized deicing pads

– r espectively rely on five, four and four such pads. Second, ERG inappropriately tries to correlate the number of deicing pads necessary to the number of runways. As discussed in detail above in Section V.B, determining an appropriate number of deicing pads requires consideration of such site - specific factors as airfield layout, historical weather data and airport operations data regarding which runway use configurations are most commonly associated with snow and icing events. Such analyses are essential to e ffectively siting deicing pads near the runway ends that are most likely to be used by departing aircraft during snow and icing conditions.197 [FOOTNOTE: 197 Boston - Logan believes that EPA has only three options resulting from the analyses underlying its P roposed Rule and Boston - Logan’s inability to comply with a final regulation based on the Proposed Rule: (1) withdraw the Proposed Rule; (2) repropose new airport deicing ELG standards after correcting all of the issues raised in these and other industry co mments; or (3) grant a FDF variance for Boston - Logan. If EPA asserts it “properly considered” land availability issues through its ERG Memorandum (meaning it could not grant a FDF variance for Boston - Logan on a land availability basis), then the Airport w ould assert that a final regulation based on the Proposed Rule is arbitrary and capricious based on the obviously significant shortcomings associated with the ERG Memorandum. Conversely, if EPA agrees that the ERG Memorandum does not meet the “properly con sidered” standard, then it must grant Boston - Logan a FDF variance.] EPA’s cost estimates grossly understate the costs that Boston - Logan would incur to meet the Proposed Rule’s deicing runoff collection and treatment requirements at Boston - Logan. For exam ple, EPA’s original cost estimate for the construction of a centralized deicing pad or pads that would comply with the Proposed Rule was about $24 million. Corrected to account for calculation errors made by EPA (identified in Section VII.A), EPA’s cost es timate for this proposed BAT for 60% available spent ADF collection at airports such as Boston - Logan would be about $55.7 million. However, to construct the398 three - pad scenario that could actually comply with both the Proposed Rule and FAA requirements, Ma ssport would have to spend approximately $1.57 billion, and this amount does not include substantial necessary costs such as payments to the Commonwealth for use of public tidelands, environmental mitigation costs and permitting costs.198 [FOOTNOTE: 198 Se e Section V.C.2.] More specifically, Boston - Logan’s construction costs under the three - pad scenario (assuming the North and East Pads could be permitted) would be orders of magnitude more costly than EPA’s estimate of the costs of ADF collection using cent ralized deicing pads, primarily due to the exorbitant costs of creating filled land in Boston Harbor, as described above in Section V.C.2. In addition, based on the costs that Boston - Logan incurred in 1997 - 1998 to construct four 1.8 million gallon fuel tan ks at the Boston - Logan above - ground fuel storage facility, it is clear that building the storage capacity to manage all the deicing runoff collected at Boston - Logan under the Proposed Rule (assuming that space could be found at the Airport to site the nece ssary storage tanks) would be far more costly than what EPA has assumed (about $2.4 million, corrected to about $7 million) due to the site - specific factors described in Section V.E. Massport estimates the cost to build sufficient storage facilities at app roximately $28 million.199 [FOOTNOTE: 199 See Bessom Affidavit , 10.] Finally, setting aside the unavailability of space at Boston - Logan to site an AFB treatment system, Boston - Logan’s treatment costs would be much higher than EPA projected (about $45.7 mi llion, corrected to about $93.7 million) because Boston - Logan would not be able to treat a significant portion of its deicing runoff using AFB treatment, as discussed in Section VI. As GS&P concluded, even if Massport expended $54 million to build an AFB s ystem, it would only be capable of treating only 94% of the annual deicing runoff volume and only 56% of the associated BOD load under the Expanded Juliet Pad scenario, thereby leaving 6% of its runoff volume and 44% of the BOD load untreated. Treating thi s remaining portion would necessitate even more costs. Similarly, under the end - of pipe interception scenario, even if Massport expended $61 million to build an AFB system, it would only be capable of treating only 15% of its annual deicing runoff volume a nd 75% of the associated BOD load. Again, Massport would still have additional costs to treat the bulk (85%) of its runoff volume and the remaining 25% of the associated BOD load. Clearly, the costs that Massport would incur to meet the Proposed Rule’s ADF collection requirements alone would be “[a] removal cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost considered during development of the national limits.”200 [FOOTNOTE: 200 40 C.F.R. § 125.31(b)(3).] Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports ). There are no grounds for requesting an FDF variance, since the provisions objected to are not in the final rule. The restriction on land availability for adding deicing pads at certain airports was part of the reason for EPA’s decision not to establish uniform ADF collection or treatment requirements for existing airports. FDF_VAR - FDF Variances Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 4 (AAAE) Simply put, the "one size fits all approach" of this ELG is not a good fit for the airport industry. The EPA must acknowledge that there are no simple solutions to the competing, and sometimes conflicting, objectives of aircraft safet y, environmental regulatory compliance, materials compatibility, and operational viability -- the environment cannot trump all other considerations. Response: See response to 1219.1, #2 (NATA) (code BAT_VAR)399 FDF_VAR - FDF Variances Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 20 The proposed rule is based on the premise that airports have sufficient land to install the necessary collection technologies to meet the requirements of the rule; in particular the deicing pads necessary to meet the 60 percen t collection requirement. See 74 Fed. Reg. at 44692. The EPA has indicated in section 2.2.4 Land Availability of the Technical Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (TDD), that the a gency is “aware that airports across the country have different amounts of land that may be available for facility modifications, such as for installation of environmental controls. . . .” AAAE believes that this understates the impracticality of some airp orts to not only physically construct deicing pads, for example, on the airport property, but also does not consider the need for efficient and, more importantly, safe operations. Airports have many constraints to ensure that optimal safety is achieved. Ru nway safety is of utmost importance to the airport, as well as observing object free areas and obstruction clearance criteria. It would be beneficial to have the FAA or the airport itself involved in any decisions regarding feasibility of collection techno logy installation. We are compelled to remind the Agency once again that circumstances vary widely from airport to airport, including availability of land. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports,). Also see section V.C.4 (BAT Options Selection) of the final rule preamble. For new sources, w hen designing a new airport, the local operating agency plans the site fo r all needed facilities, such as runways, taxiways, terminal(s) and other components needed to comply with safety and environmental requirements, and this includes deicing facilities. See FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070 - 6B, “Airport Master Plans.” EPA con sulted with FAA during the development of the rule, and FAA has concurred with the final rule. See DCN AD01337. FDF_VAR - FDF Variances Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 52 (PA NY/NJ) The two model airports are not representative of the Port Authority airports. Each airport operation is unique based on its geographical location, size, runway and taxiway configurations, weather pattern, customer demands, operational and safety procedures, capacity, and other characteristics. The following fact ual information outlines the fundamental differences between the Port Authority and the two model airports. CAK served about 1.4 million total passengers in 2005, a small fraction (less than 5 percent) of the 40.9 million passengers served at JFK, 25.9 mil lion at LGA, and 33.1 million at EWR in that year. Similarly, the 14,911 “total airport departures” at CAK listed in TDD Table 4 - 4 is less than 10 percent of the 154,606 departures at JFK, 192,127 at LGA, and 203,082 at EWR listed in Table 4 - 4. Information in the docket indicates that CAK serves only domestic destinations;111 a review of the airport’s current schedule indicates that about half of the 24 departures per day are performed by commuter carriers.112 This information implies that the aircraft used at CAK are mostly regional jets and Aircraft Design Group III jet aircraft, much different than the mix of aircraft used at the Port Authority’s major airports (and in particular JFK, which has a substantial number of international flights using large air craft). Although the docket does not contain information on hourly departures, the airport’s schedule indicates that there are only five air carrier/commuter aircraft departures an hour at most

– much lower than the 40 to 60 hourly departures that can occu r at our three major airports. As documented in the TDD (and assuming for the moment that the TDD numbers are valid), the annual ADF usage at CAK was 60,246 gallons as compared to 560,031 gallons at JFK, 1,123,057 gallons at EWR, and 485,157 gallons at LGA .113 The annual400 average snowfall114 in Akron, OH is 47.1 inches as compared to 22.7, 26.0, and 27.6 inches at JFK, LGA, and EWR, respectively. ALB served about 1.38 million total passengers in 2008,115 a small fraction (less than 3 percent) of the 47.8 mil lion passengers served at JFK, 23.1 million at LGA, and 35.3 million at EWR in that year. Similarly, the 39,324 “total airport departures” at ALB listed in TDD Table 4 - 4 is less than 26 percent of the 154,606 departures at JFK, 192,127 at LGA, and 203,082 at EWR listed in Table 4 - 4. ALB serves mostly domestic destinations with only one international destination in Canada.116 This information implies that the aircraft used at ALB are mostly Aircraft Design Group III jet aircraft. Although the docket does not contain information on hourly departures, the airport’s schedule indicates that there are only 7 air carrier/commuter aircraft departures an hour at most

– again, much lower than the 40 to 60 hourly departures that can occur at our three major airports. A s documented in the TDD, the annual ADF usage at ALB was 125,775 gallons117 as compared to 560,031 gallons at JFK, 1,123,057 gallons at EWR, and 485,157 gallons at LGA. The annual average snowfall118 at ALB is 63.9 inches as compared to 22.7, 26.0, and 27. 6 inches at JFK, LGA, and EWR, respectively. Though limited, the above comparison of factual information between the two model airports and the Port Authority airports clearly points out the underlying differences between the airports and demonstrates how each airport operation is unique. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). Also see response to 1231.1 #20 (above). FDF_VAR - FDF Variances Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 118 EPA has raised the potential of granting airports a Fundamentally Different Factors (“FDF”) variance in the future.291 The Port Authority questions whether FDF variances in the curre nt circumstances would be issued and could withstand a legal challenge from a third party. As such, EPA’s blind reliance on FDF variances as a potential “fix - all” for problems created within the Proposed Rule is an unacceptable gamble to the Port Authority . Should EPA rely on a FDF variance “safe harbor,” then the Port Authority requests that EPA set forth in any final rule a clear and legally defensible procedure and methodology through which the Port Authority would be assured of being granted a FDF varia nce. The remaining comments in this section analyze the various constraints and considerations relating to FDF variances and subcategorization. A. EPA’s FDF Variance Authority Clean Water Act Section 301(n) and related regulations provide for a variance me chanism to allow appropriate relief from ELG standards. A discharger may qualify for the variance if the discharger is “fundamentally different” with respect to the factors considered by EPA in establishing the applicable ELGs for a particular category.292 EPA has developed six factors to determine if a discharger is “fundamentally different” from the factors it used to develop the applicable ELGs: 1. The nature or quality of pollutants contained in the raw waste load of the applicants process wastewater; 2 . The volume of the discharger’s process wastewater and effluent discharged; 3. Non - water quality environmental impact of control and treatment of the discharger’s raw waste load; 4. Energy requirements of the application of control and treatment technolog y; 5. Age, size, land availability, and configuration as they relate to the discharger’s equipment or facilities; processes employed; process changes; and engineering aspects of the application of control technology; and 6. Cost of compliance with required control technology.293 The NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual (“Manual”) provides insight into EPA’s analysis regarding the factors that may be considered for a FDF variance. 294 Pursuant to the Manual, the factors must relate to a discharger’s facilities, equi pment, and processes. Factors that cannot be considered include • The feasibility of installing the treatment within the given time frame, • A claim that the limits cannot be achieved with the given technology (unless supported with data), • Ability to pay , or • The impact on local receiving water quality.295 EPA developed the FDF401 variance as a “mechanism for ensuring that its necessarily rough - hewn categories do not unfairly burden atypical plants.”296 A FDF variance is appropriate for dischargers that are fundamentally different in a way that would have required EPA to place them initially in a separate category had their situation been considered.297 A FDF variance is appropriate when “not all relevant factors were taken sufficiently into account ... and th at those relevant factors, properly considered, would have justified

— indeed, required

— the creation of a subcategory for the discharger in question.”298 Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set unifor m ADF collection or treatment requirements for existing airports). There are no grounds for requesting an FDF variance, since the provisions being objected to are not in the final rule. FDF_VAR - FDF Variances Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 119 In the case of the Port Authority airports, the Proposed Rule has failed to accurately acknowledge the land constraints at the airports. Specifically, the Proposed Rule assumes that all of the required deicing pads will be installed within the current boundaries of airport property.299 The Port Authority airports do not have the land available to install the required deicing pads within existing airport boundaries. Further, due to the urban nature of the Port Authority airports, land is not available n ear the airports. (See Section V of these comments.) Consequently, the Port Authority airports are atypical from the single category created by EPA, specifically implicating a FDF variance factor such that, the “[a]ge, size, land availability, and configur ation as they relate to the [Port Authority’s] equipment or facilities; processes employed; process changes; and engineering aspects of the application of control technology” is fundamentally different than those considered by EPA. Thus, EPA’s inaccurate c onsideration of the land availability constraints at Port Authority airports may qualify the Port Authority for a FDF variance. Nevertheless, the Port Authority is uncomfortable relying upon this one factor, alone, without confirmation and reassurance from EPA.300 [FOOTNOTE: 300 The Port Authority recognizes that should EPA confirm that it in fact did not properly consider issues associated with land constrained airports, or other factors for that matter, to satisfy the Port Authority’s FDF variance concern s, the Agency risks admitting that it did not properly consider critical factors that underlie its entire Proposed Rule. If correct, this “no win” situation further supports abandoning the Proposed Rule entirely or through reproposal at a future date.] Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform ADF collection or treatment requirements for existing airports). There are no grounds for requesting an FDF variance, since the provisions being objecte d to are not in the final rule. FDF_VAR - FDF Variances Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1247 - 1 KCAB believes that the proposed rules are deficient in that they Do not considers each airport's unique geographical and flight traffic challenges. Resp onse: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports)402 FDF_VAR - FDF Variances Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1247 - 5 Unlike a n umber of urban airports throughout the county, CVG primarily resided in a rural area, but over time has become a more urban area with residential and light industrial neighbors. The use of an AFBR as a singular Wastewater Treatment and Recycling Technology would not allow the Airport to have operational flexibility for compliance throughout the deicing season. The EAAS system has been successful at CVG, although these same types of systems may not be as successful or even feasible at other airports. Even wi th all these programs, there is still a potential for exceeding the permit limits at the compliance locations on Gunpowder Creek and Elijah Creek. The permit does not contain a discretionary latitude for exceeding the permit limits during extreme weather c onditions. During a significant snow or ice event, passenger safety is critical. It is not feasible to design for these few extreme weather events due to the fact that the system maybe overdesigned, and unable to effectively treat at more normalized values . Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ). EPA notes that the commenter offered no data or rationale to support its assertions. In particular, the commenter provided no rationale or data as to why location in a rural or residential area would affect the capability of the ADF system to meet the promulgated discharge requirements for new sources. In addition, the comme nter did not explain why the system would not allow them to be in compliance throughout the deicing season nor did they explain why this system may not work at other locations or airports. Finally, the commenter provides no rationale to explain why a heav y storm event would lead to exceedences of the promuglated limit. EPA notes, however, that standard NPDES permit conditions include provisions for upset and bypass of permit limitations, which may be applicable during extreme weather events. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 10 A GRV efficiency varies greatly with the conditions that it must works in. Here are some observations that we have noticed over the years with our G RV. a. Low levels of precipitation: The GRV works fairly well b. Cold weather with some snow: ANC has had some problems with the equipment icing up and not working. With enough dilution from the ADF mixing with the snow and low temperatures (usually 10 deg . F or colder), we have had the unit ice up enough that is does not work. Exact temperature cutoff depends on amount of dilution however. c. Between a little and a lot of snow: Too much snow and the intake will act as a plow and push the ADF and the snow r ather than pick it up. In this case, we found that a standard curb and gutter vac truck does a better job As above, the amount of snow that will make sense to switch vehicles varies with amount of snow, number of aircraft deicing in one area and amount of ADF used per aircraft. d. Lots of snow: Just too hard to really deal with ADF for multiple users or time of low departures. Actually easier just to plow the snow and ADF up together and dispose of it. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform A DF collection or discharge requirements for existing airports. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. For new airports, EPA has identified a different control technology (CDPs) instead of GCVs as the BADCT for pur poses of new source performance standards. However, even at new airports, the information in this comment does not403 change EPA’s conclusion that CDPs are the best available demonstrated control technology for NSPS purposes rather than GCVs. EPA thanks the commenter for the information on their GRV operational experiences. Also see response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 Comment Excerpt #12 in this comment code category. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 20 04 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 12 Use of GRV recovery will vary with the condition of the ramp. Concrete will generally outperform asphalt. Ramps with cracks will decrease recovery also. ANC experience is we get about 16 to 20% recovery of total sprayed but we do not operate GRV in all conditions. For all conditions, would expect some drop. Did EPA take into account that the recovery that is currently obtained may drop if required for all deicing operations in all conditions? Response: The final rule does not establ ish uniform ADF collection or discharge requirements for existing airports. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. [For new airports, the information in this comment does not change EPA’s conclusion that CDPs are the best available demonstrated control technology for NSPS purposes rather than GRVs. EPA estimates that GCVs typically capture at least 20 percent of the available ADF when properly operated and maintained and EPA's estimate of available ADF from applie d (sprayed) ADF accounts for losses. See Section 8.2.3 of the TDD. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 4 Mechanical Glycol Collection Equipment: Continuing with Page 44686 Section VII, (B) (1) (a), Glycol Recovery Vehicles, it was noted that the reference to this method as using "GRVs" seems to invoke the requirement to use only one style and make of equipment; since the term is trademarked by Elgin: Glycol Recovery Vehicle "GRV ®" (as p ictured throughout your Technical Development Document

– TDD). If this is not the intent of the EPA, it may be more appropriate to use a term like mechanical collection equipment, or mechanical recovery unit, etc. EQRR will continue to refer to the method as "GRV" throughout the rest of this correspondence. There are a variety of truck mounted mechanical recovery equipment designed to manage ADF wastewaters available to the industry, other than the make and model referenced in your Technical Development Doc ument. And although the TDD states that there is tow behind units designed to recover glycols, there are also tractor mounted systems and tow - behind systems that do not utilize a vacuum mechanism. One example is the absorbent drum glycol recovery unit, som etimes referred to as "the sponge". This tow - able system uses an absorbent membrane wrapped around a steel drum. The drum is released allowing it to engage the surface, collecting the liquids that have accumulated. A pressure/roller mechanism squeezes the liquid from the drum as it rotates, allowing the released liquids to collect in a reservoir/basin. The integrated pump is then used to empty the basin once full into a larger storage tank or tote. This unit is sufficient to manage a single deicing location , with intermittent usage, as in a feeder cargo station or small regional/reliever airport. The tractor mounted glycol recovery unit is best suited for locations where flexibility and maneuverability are important. Equipped with dual tandem scrubbing brush es (use is optional) and a parabolic squeegee direct the accumulated ADF to the pump inlet (vacuum suction head). Twin saddle tanks store the collected fluid.404 Quick off loading of collected ADF is provided by on board discharge pump. System is designed to manage one or two deice locations (weather dependent) and is especially well suited for operating in close proximity to GSE, as in gate side deicing operations. There are also numerous examples of airports (or airport contractors) using modified street swe epers and industrial vacuum trucks to collect accumulated ADF. It is also told, although we have not seen it directly, of an air base using a modified snow plow (equipped with a hard rubber leading edge) as a squeegee, pushing the accumulated ADF to a cent ral point or catch basin. It is true that this form of collection is a "modular technology' as presented in this section of the publication, however, adding more units does not necessarily increase the collection capacity for the airport. As alluded to in the TDD, page 9 - 2, the addition of more mechanical recovery units adds to the vehicular congestion around the gate areas. However, it is not only the traffic from the ground support equipment (GSE), but also the aircraft traffic as well. Whether managing A DF at the gates or at designated deice locations, these units require a reasonable amount of time to access and remove the accumulated ADF. More equipment may be necessary to manage a larger surface area, or more simultaneous deicing operations, but with f ocused departure schedules (a "push"), consolidation of more flights by airlines to fewer gates (cost cutting measures), and the desire to reduce impacted surface areas usually do not support the addition of more mechanical recovery equipment. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform ADF collection or discharge requirements for existing airports. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. For new airports, the information in this comment does not change E PA’s conclusion that CDPs are the best available demonstrated control technology for NSPS purposes rather than GRVs. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 5 Plug and pump Techniques, used alone or in combination with other methods of ADF collection: Also on Page 44686 Section VII, (B) (1) paragraph (b) details the concept of "Plug and Pump". Plug and pump or "block and pump" is a method of ADF collection applied at most airports at some ti me or another. However, it does not have to involve the use of a "GRV" (as denoted in your publication) but the reverse is almost always true; that most successful "GRV" collection programs involve the use of drain blockers, insets, or other diversion mech anisms to allow the accumulation of ADF before the equipment is dispatched to the location. Not all blocking devices are necessarily temporary. Although they are typically a low cost solution (inserts, balloons, and other diversion equipment are relatively inexpensive), there is the concerns of longevity of equipment, flexibility of the system to be activated/deactivated, access (may be in aircraft movement areas), storage during the off - seasons, and the possible need for confined space entry and other safe ty concerns during installation and removal. A number of airports have installed additional (permanent) valves or gates within their existing storm water system to isolate an area for deicing application. It is also not necessary that a vacuum truck be dis patch to empty the piping of contained fluids. The diversion equipment may isolate the storm water piping servicing an area such that it can direct (gravity flow) all the way from the application area to a dedicated pond or lagoon. EQRR has installed elect ric submersible pumps in block and pump systems to convey the ADF from the isolated area to the on - site storage or to a truck loading station (sometimes installing pipe in pipe systems to take advantage of existing storm water pipe routes). Response: Th e final rule does not establish uniform ADF collection or discharge requirements for existing airports. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. For new airports, the information in this comment does not change EPA’ s conclusion that CDPs are the best available demonstrated control technology for NSPS purposes rather than plug and pump technologies.405 GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 19 Later in th e section, the EPA recognizes that some airports may have difficulty maintaining a biological system due to limited "regular waste water flow". Our experience has shown that this will be true for most airports, but especially those that couple "GRV" collec tion - only with AFB. In addition to providing too strong (COD) of a waste stream for an AFB (discussed later) the active management technique of GRV collection results in a relatively small volume of collected fluid. (It is understood that ALB and CAK do no t utilize GRVs as their collection methods for these reasons). Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform ADF collection or discharge requirement for spent ADF as part of the BAT requirements. Such requirements will continue to be established on a sit e specific BPJ basis. For new airports, the information in this comment does not change EPA’s conclusion that CDPs are the best available demonstrated control technology for NSPS purposes rather than GRVs. However, EPA acknowledges that ADF contaminated stormwater concentrations and volume collected are variable when utilizing GCVs. Storage tanks are used at airports to provide either flow and/or concentration equalization of aircraft deicing and anti - icing fluid (ADF) contaminated stormwater prior to POT W/off - site discharge or to an on - site treatment system. For costing purposes, EPA has included storage tank costs for each in - scope airport expected to perform additional ADF contaminated stormwater collection based on the airport's estimated ADF usage. Se e section 7.1.2 of the TDD. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 35 § 449.20 (1) (i) (B) states that the use of emulsifiers is mandatory? What is the basis for requiring the use of this chemical when operating a "GRV". This aspect of the regulation is not discussed in the publication prior to introducing the concept here in the proposed rule. Similarly, the support document (DCN AD000851) detailing operational issues for a "GRV" states th at there is insufficient information available regarding the proper amount to be used. EQRR has had limited, if any, success in using an emulsifier, and not all glycol recovery equipment in the market are designed to use an emulsifier. If emulsifiers are r equired, was the cost of the chemical included in the annual operational and maintenance costs calculations? Lastly, why introduce another chemical into the environment, during a process designed to remove ADF? Data extracted from the MSDS for the product previously used by EQRR as an emulsifier (ZEP #0861) includes... Response: See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, Comment Excerpt 7. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - excerpts 41 and 42406 TDD Page 8 - 4 states that "Plug - and - pump collection systems are applicable to airports that deice at the gate." A number of airports utilize plug and pump techniques to convert ramp areas (cargo, feeder, taxiway, etc.) into deicing pad s. It does not necessarily have to occur at the gate. Also on TDD page 8 - 4, the last paragraph references that the material collected by "GRVs" is "transported to an on - site storage facility where the airport can treat and discharge, ...". Typically, due to time constraints, temporary storage is utilized (frac - style tanks) located in the general area, to allow for a quick off - load of collected material, allowing the "GRV" to return to collection rapidly. This material can be transported later, using larger capacity equipment to the on - site storage or off - site for treatment/disposal. In addition, some airports (with collection and conveyance systems, or plug and pumps) will have a designated area where the "GRV" can discharge into the collection system, all owing this existing infrastructure to convey the material to final "storage". Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform collection or discharge requirement for spent ADF for existing sources. However, EPA acknowledges that quick off - loading of GCVs increases the efficiency of GCV operation. Underground piping can transfer collected stormwater to either on - site storage and treatment or to the local sanitary sewer collection system, which will vary for each airport. GCVs can be offloaded into any sewer drain, sump or open pipe outlet. In its technical analysis, EPA conservatively estimated airports to need 10,000 linear feet of new subsurface stormwater conveyance piping from various areas around the airport to transfer to storage. The estimated length of piping is based on comments received on the proposed rule and EPA's estimated installed capital costs for 10,000 linear feet of new stormwater conveyance piping are approximately $1,141,000. See section 10.2.2.2 of the TDD. The language in final TDD h as been modified to state "Plug - and - pump collection systems are applicable to airports that deice at the gate and may be utilized to convert ramp areas (cargo, feeder, taxiway etc.) into deicing areas. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 50 Under section 9.1.1 of the same page, a very accurate statement is made by the EPA "This technology works most efficiently when it is used to collect runoff soon after deicing is completed and with as little dilution as possible from direct precipitation and non - deicing runoff" The active collection method of a "GRV" is quite capable of collecting lower volumes (relative to passive collection methods) with a higher concentration of ADF. However, as rev ealed later in the TDD (page 11 - 14) the quoted average concentration is 0.5 to 10 percent. Our experience is that 10 percent is actually on the (very) low end of the "GRV" concentrations. 13 A review of our "GRV" collection records14 show that the average concentration of the collected material ranged from 17 to 35%. As presented above, the overall volume is small in comparison to the amount of ADF/storm water collected from our "plug and pump" or "deice pad" operations. This "small" volume of material, cou pled with a very high concentration of active ingredient (26% average) will be nearly impossible to process through an AFB (a topic discussed later in this document). Section 9.1.2 discusses the use of a "GRV" in combination with "plug and pump" systems. A lthough discussed previously, it warrants repeating that an effective (capture) "GRV" program is only possible coupled with diversion technology. I.e. "GRVs" are a "plug and pump" technology. This is actually acknowledged in the last paragraph of this sect ion. Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform ADF collection or discharge requirement for spent ADF as part of the BAT requirements. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. For407 new airports, the information i n this comment does not change EPA’s conclusion that CDPs are the best available demonstrated control technology for NSPS purposes rather than GRVs. In addition, see the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1, Comment Excerpt 19. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 61 Regarding the information presented on TDD Page 11 - 14, the section titled "Glycol Recovery Vehicles", the first paragraph (as referenced previously) details the collected concentration of the method to be 0.5 to 10%. In addition, the concept of linking the number of "GRV" to the number of outfalls servicing an airport as a means of estimating the number of "GRV" to be assigned to an airport does not reflect real world experiences. The Sample Airports referenced in Table 11 - 3 all utilize 1 - GRV each. Did thes e airports 1) operate any other method of collection and the "GRV" was used to manage select area(s)? 2) Did these "GRV" program capture 20% or greater of the available ADF, or were more "GRVs" necessary to meet this target? Why did the EPA omit the Washin gton Metropolitan Airports (DCA, IAD) from the calculations? They represent the largest single - use of "GRV" collection in the US. With up to 18 GRVs at IAD and 4 at DCA and a relatively low number of deicing outfalls per airport, this data would greatly al ter the multiplier used in the operational cost estimate. 4 Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform ADF collection or discharge requirement for spent ADF as part of the BAT requirements. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site - s pecific BPJ basis. For new airports, the information in this comment does not change EPA’s conclusion that CDPs are the best available demonstrated control technology for NSPS purposes rather than GRVs. However, several commenters opposed the previous GCV costing basis which costed equipment on a sliding scale per the number of airport deicing outfalls. In its technical analysis, EPA has revised the GCV costing approach to base the costs on airport hub size and has used those airports reporting GCV cos t and data on number of GCVs in the airport detailed questionnaire to base an approach for GCV costs. EPA notes that neither Washington Dulles (IAD) nor Reagan National (DCA) airports provided GCV costing information as part of their airport questionnaire s. See EPA's October 8, 2010 memorandum: Estimated Capital and Operation and Maintenance Cost for Glycol Collection Vehicle Operations in the final rule record and the final rule TDD Section 10.2.2.1 for documentation on the airports used for the GCV cost ing analysis. Those airports that provided GCV costs in the airport detailed questionnaire used a combination of collection and control technologies (GCV use only, GCV use with plug and pump, and GCV use with deicing pads). EPA's basis for the performanc e efficiency of GCV use alone is documented in the final rule TDD, Section 8.3. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 63 Under the next section, entitled "Plug and Pump with GRVs", it de tails the benefit of "deicing at the gate". Not all "Plug and Pump" involve gate deicing. Many "plug and pump" operations are implemented at cargo or maintenance ramps, and along taxiways. This section goes on to discuss using a "GRV" to pump the collected fluid out of the isolated piping or catch basins. Although a "GRV" can be equipped with a suction hose, it is better suited for vacuuming up ADF from the surface. As discussed previously,408 once allowed to accumulate below the ramp surface, it is usually a vacuum truck or tanker (3,500 - gallons or greater) that is used to remove the collected ADF and transport to on - site or directly to the off - site storage. Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform ADF collection or discharge requirement for spent ADF as part of the BAT requirements. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. For new airports, the information in this comment does not change EPA’s conclusion that CDPs are the best available demonstrated control techno logy for NSPS purposes rather than GRVs. However, EPA acknowledges the commenter's point that the plug and pump collection technology can be used at deicing locations other than the gate. EPA thanks the commenter for their information on the use of vacuum trucks or tankers and has revised its descriptions accordingly. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 79 Section 12.2 of the TDD details the calculation of air emissions from "GRVs". It i s usually the accepted protocol (when calculating the potential to emit (PTE)) for a new source to discuss the emissions which may occur over a period of time (i.e. 8760 - hours per year) or in this case the 150 - days per year assigned to deice operations x 24 hours per day or 3,600 hours. Taking the approach of assigning a "maximum" gallons of diesel consumed appears to be placing a limit (similar to a FESOP - Federally Enforceable State Operating Permits) on the number of hours GRVs could operate within the US airports per year. Given the various models and configurations of glycol recovery equipment, all operating at various fuel consumption rates, this may not be an accurate estimation of the emissions. Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform ADF co llection or discharge requirement for spent ADF as part of the BAT requirements. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. For new airports, the information in this comment does not change EPA’s conclusion that CDPs are the best available demonstrated control technology for NSPS purposes rather than GRVs. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 21 The requirement for the use of a chemical emulsifier in the technical specifications for glycol recovery vehicle operation is an unnecessary cost to airports. In the past, chemical emulsifiers were commonly used in this process, but experience has shown th at the emulsifiers don’t really enhance collection performance compared to clean water alone. Thus, they are no longer used. Washing the pavement with clean water after initial glycol collection can significantly enhance collection performance, and most gl ycol recovery vehicles are equipped with an onboard freshwater tank and spray heads to accomplish this process. However, this practice is only applicable under certain weather conditions where it will not result in an ice glaze on the pavement, which prese nts a safety hazard. There should be no requirement for the use of emulsifiers or other forms of pavement washing as part of the glycol recovery vehicle specifications. Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform ADF collection or discharge requirement for spent ADF as part of the BAT requirements. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site - specific BPJ basis. For409 new airports, the information in this comment does not change EPA’s conclusion that CDPs are the best available demonstrate d control technology for NSPS purposes rather than GRVs. See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, Comment Excerpt 7. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 22 Glycol recover y vehicle collection operations virtually always include drain blocks as part of their operations. Most glycol recovery vehicle operations employ some sort of device in the storm sewer inlets to contain deicing runoff on the apron surface until it can be c ollected. Fact Sheet 33 in ACRP Report #14 describes these devices and how they are used. The final rule and associated documentation will be a primary reference source for airports, regulators, and the interested public. While no exception is taken to EPA ’s characterization of the performance standard for glycol recovery vehicle operations, it is important that the details of those operations be accurately described. Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform ADF collection or discharge requirement fo r spent ADF as part of the BAT requirements. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. For new airports, the information in this comment does not change EPA’s conclusion that CDPs are the best available demonstrated control technology for NSPS purposes rather than GRVs. However, EPA acknowledges that the use of drain covers during GCV operation is a widely used practice and increases the collection efficiency of GCVs. Where EPA estimated costs for GCV only, it includ ed costs for drain covers. Since the number of drain covers needed by an airport cannot be estimated by EPA with the available data, EPA incorporated a cost increase factor of 20% to the annual O&M cost for the use of GCVs to account for the use of these covers. See section 10.2.2.1 of the TDD. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 - 7 The technical specifications listed within the ELG for glycol recovery vehicle (GRV) operations include the need to use an emulsifier to aid in ADF recovery. This requirement may have unwanted side effects on an airport's storm water discharges that do not justify this requirement. The use of emulsifiers on the collection areas and ramps will likely lead to som e fraction of the emulsifiers reaching - the storm sewer system. Many NPDES permits have a requirement that no foam is allowed in the discharge waters. Utilizing an emulsifier on airport ramps and deicing areas may increase the likelihood of foaming within t he airport's discharge, thereby jeopardizing compliance with its NPDES permit. Considering the potential detrimental side effects, there does not appear to be sufficient data or experience with emulsifier usage and GRVs that would support this requirement. In addition to the potential foaming issues, this may cause increased logistical and operational inefficiencies with the use of the GRV that will. reduce the efficiency of the GRV at collecting spent ADF. The ability of the GRV to begin collecting fluid a s soon as practical is essential in the successful recovery of spent ADF. Many airports do not employ the use of emulsifiers with their GRVs and still achieve reliable collection of spent ADF. The EPA should eliminate the emulsifier use requirement stated in §449.20(b)(1)(i)(B ) from the ELG.410 Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform ADF collection or treatment requirement for spent ADF as part of the requirements for existing sources. EPA notes that none of the technical specifications for the option s considered for the final rulemaking that included GRVs required emulsifiers nor were EPA’s estimates of ADF collection based on GRVs that used emulsifiers . For new airports, the information in this comment does not change EPA’s conclusion that CDPs are the best available demonstrated control technology for NSPS purposes rather than GRVs. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1 - 7 Extensive use of Glycol Recovery Vehicles (GRV) could adverse ly impact ramp safety for already congested airport operations and complex ramp handling procedures. Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform ADF collection or discharge requirement for spent ADF as part of the BAT requirements. Such requirements wil l continue to be established on a site - specific BPJ basis. For new airports, the information in this comment does not change EPA’s conclusion that CDPs are the best available demonstrated control technology for NSPS purposes rather than GRVs. See respons e to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 35. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 33 ADF Collection for Tier Two Airports EPA also fails to consider safety impacts when de signating ADF Collection BAT for Tier Two airports. The technology basis for that standard is operation of GRVs. The operation of any vehicle on the airside area of an airport presents unique safety challenges and, as the FAA emphasizes, “control of [such] vehicular activity is of the highest importance.”98 [FOOTNOTE:98 AC 150/5210 - 20, Ground Vehicle Operations on Airports at 3 (June 21, 2002).] Indeed, the FAA advises that “[a]irport operators should keep vehicular and pedestrian activity on the airside of the airport to a minimum . . . Where vehicular traffic on airport operations areas cannot be avoided, it should be carefully controlled.”99 [FOOTNOTE:99 AC 150/5210 - 20 at 2.] Caution is only increased in conditions that prevail during winter operations: “ Additional consideration should be given to vehicle operations during low visibility. Poor weather conditions (snow, fog, rain, etc.) may obscure visual cues, roadway markings and airport signs.”100 [FOOTNOTE:100 AC 150/5210 - 20 at 4.] The importance of saf ety in operating GRVs is emphasized in a training manual prepared by Inland Technologies, a copy of which (though only partial) is included in the Record: The information to follow is intended to familiarize the operator with the Glycol Recovery Vehicle (G RV). The operator’s responsibility is the recovery of aircraft deicing fluid in the safest, and most efficient manner possible, but at no time should an operator sacrifice safety for increased fluid collection. In addition to the written information contai ned in this manual each operator must receive practical hands - on training before he or she may safely operate during actual recovery situations. . . . The operator must remain aware of all aircraft and vehicle movements while working on the airfield. If so equipped, the air - to - ground radio should be tuned to the proper frequency, thereby keeping the operator informed of aircraft movements.101 This is a key consideration when deploying GRVs because: “[t]he overall effectiveness of glycol collection vehicles varies based on the number of vehicles used relative to the areas and deicing activities served.”102 In addition, the efficiency of glycol recovery using GRVs is directly affected by safety requirements that determine time available between411 aircraft operat ions: In the operation of the actual recovery of spent deicing fluids, the GRV speed is very important. The slower the driving speed of the GRV, the more efficient the recovery of the fluids, as the vacuum is over then contaminated area longer. The operato r must realize that there are restrictions of time that effect [sic] the recovery of areas, as aircraft may be reusing the same gate or area upon the next arrival. 103 In setting forth the “technical specifications” compliance with which is deemed to satis fy the ADF Collection BAT for Tier Two Airports

– i.e., collection of 20% of available ADF

– EPA does provide that “ADF collection by GRV shall commence as soon . . . as is practicable and safe.”104 However, safety as defined by the FAA and GRV operators a like plays absolutely no role in EPA’s determination of what constitutes “well - designed, well - operated collection” using GRVs.105 Rather, the number of GRVs EPA assumes are needed to achieve BAT at any given airport is based on exclusively an infrastructur e characteristic -- the number of stormwater outfalls.106 The record here demonstrates that the number of GRVs needed to achieve the Tier Two collection standard at a particular airport will be determined primarily by the number, type and frequency of aircr aft operations at the airport. Whether that number of GRVs can be safely deployed, consistent with FAA, airline, and operator safety mandates is a separate, critically important question. Yet, EPA entirely failed to consider either the factors that actuall y affect the number of GRVs necessary to achieve its proposed Tier Two standard or the ability to safely deploy those numbers of units at specific airports when setting the proposed ADF Collection BAT at Tier Two Airports. Response: EPA is not promulgati ng a uniform ADF collection or discharge requirement for spent ADF as part of the BAT requirements. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site - specific BPJ basis. For new airports, the information in this comment does not change EPA’s co nclusion that CDPs are the best available demonstrated control technology for NSPS purposes rather than GRVs. See response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 35. EPA thanks the commenter for their information on safe operational prac tices associated with GCVs. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 40 EPA Fails to Consider Operational Impacts Associated With GRVs. The Record is devoid of any EPA discussion of potential operational issues related to use of GRVs. However, as pointed out in Section IV(A)(2), above, the efficiency of GRV collection of ADF is closely related to the speed at which they are operated and the number used to provide service, both of which are a function of aircraft operations. The Proposed Rule requires that deicing is limited to areas “where available ADF is actively collected b y GRVs.”157 Though EPA has effectively required all aircraft deicing operations to occur in close proximity to “active” GRVs, it asserts that the required ADF collection efficiency is based on “welloperated”158 collection systems, it has (as detailed in Se ction VII(B) of these Comments) failed to explain the basis of the required efficiency or what it means to “operate” GRVs “well.” It has thus not even provided a foundation for analyzing operational impacts on aircraft. Response: See response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.31, Comment Excerpt 33 and response to EPA HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 , Comment Excerpt 35. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 28412 We would ask that the EPA consider operational issues associated with running a GRV. Many times in order to run this machine safely at an airport terminal and runway, operations must be slowed or halted when the GRV is in use. Airports always aim to achieve maximum runway, taxiway and airf ield safety. Thus, adding additional vehicles into the traffic could lead to not only operational delays but potential runway and taxiway hazards. Response: See response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.31, Comment Excerpt 33. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1234.1 - 2 ALPA is concerned about the language in Part §449.20(1) (i ) (A), which states: "All deicing activities shall take place in an area where available ADF is actively collected by GRVs, unless deicing for safe taxiing is also required." This requirement will increase the number of ground vehicles around an aircraft w hile it is parked or moving on the ramp area during deicing operations. The EPA further articulates that the "GRV trucks are typically stationed near the ADF spraying trucks and are deployed either during aircraft deicing activities or, after the aircraft deicing activity has completed." It is reasonable to conclude that the attention of GRV drivers will most likely be focused on capturing ADF as quickly as possible, causing them to lose situational awareness around the aircraft, subjecting them to an incre ased risk of collision with other vehicles or aircraft, which could lead to damage to property and personal injury. We do not believe that EPA has completed a sufficient safety risk assessment for this activity and request one be completed prior to issuing a final rule. Response: See response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 33. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1234.1 - 6 Conduct a Safety Risk Assessment (SRA) for the G VR collection of ADF in the vicinity of the aircraft and its occupants. This SRA should be completed and applied prior to issuing a final rule. Reduction of vehicular traffic around an aircraft either while at the gate or being moved (towed or under its ow n power) will reduce the risk of collision. Response: See response to comment (GRV_OP_IMPACT) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 33. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 35 EP A has not analyzed the critical safety and operational impacts associated with increased GRV use. Response: EPA is not promulgating a uniform ADF collection or discharge requirement for spent ADF as part of the BAT requirements. Such requirements will continue to be established on a site specific BPJ basis. For413 new airports, the information in this comment does not change EPA’s conclusion that CDPs are the best available demonstrated control technology for NSPS purposes rather than GRVs. However, EPA disagrees that it did not analyze safety and operational impacts associated with GCV usage. EPA's record contains information on many airports that use GCVs. None reported safety or operational impacts associated with their use. Moreover, EPA observed GC V operations during its airport site visits and interviewed airport personnel about operational practices without safety issues associated with use of GCVs . Again, none reported such issues. EPA also consulted with FAA about potential operational issues and safety issues associated with technologies considered for today’s regulation and FAA raised no concerns about GCVs. Finally, while a few commenters questioned safety or operational impacts associated with GCV usage, none provided any data or informati on that such impacts occur. Therefore, EPA believes that the use of GCVs can be incorporated while still maintaining safe operations and safety of aircraft in terminal areas. See Section IV.E of the final rule preamble. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery veh icle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 63 EPA Must Address the Operational and Safety Implications of GRV Use. There are significant safety and operational implications associated with the use of any mobile collection technol ogy. Ensuring safe airfield operations is of paramount importance to airports. To help ensure safe operations, airports develop specific operating procedures and training programs relating to vehicular operations in the airport operations area (AOA). As a general principal, minimizing the number of mobile equipment and vehicles utilizing the AOA contributes to safer operations. This is particularly true in deicing conditions, where winter weather and the associated reduced visibility further contribute to t he safety risk for vehicular operations. As proposed by EPA, many airports will need to stage and operate mobile collection equipment in the AOA in order to meet the 20 percent collection requirements. For some airports, multiple GRVs or similar equipment may be required. The potential for the operation of mobile glycol collection equipment in an already active and congested area, particularly during winter weather conditions, to compromise airfield safety must be taken into consideration. The use of mobile collection technologies may also impact aircraft operations. The configuration of many airports results in extremely space - constrained gate areas. Because of safety requirements, aircraft may not be able to park or push back while aircraft at adjoining ga tes are deiced and spent fluid is subsequently collected. Additionally, other critical equipment such as fueling trucks and baggage carts may not be able to access the area, even at adjoining gates. The proposed requirement to deploy GRVs as soon as deicin g begins will further impact operations. The effects of EPA’s proposal may significantly impact the operational efficiency of the airport, and the associated cost impacts should be quantified. EPA does not appear to have accounted for or analyzed these ope rational implications or the costs associated with those implications. Response: See response to comment (GRV_OP_IMPACT) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 35. GRV_OP_IMPACT - Glycol recovery vehicle operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - O W - 2004 - 0038 - 1245 - 7 §449.20(b)(1)(i)(B) requirement of emulsifier use during GRV operations The technical specifications listed within the ELG for glycol recovery vehicle (GRV) operations includes the need to use an emulsifier to aid in ADF recovery. Thi s requirement may have unwanted side effects on an airport's storm water discharges that do not justify this requirement. The use of emulsifiers on the collection areas and ramps414 will likely lead to some fraction of the emulsifiers reaching - the storm sewer system. Many NPDES permits have a requirement that no foam is allowed in the discharge waters. Utilizing an emulsifier on airport ramps and deicing areas may increase the likelihood of foaming within the airport's discharge, thereby jeopardizing complianc e with its NPDES permit. Considering the potential detrimental side effects, there does not appear to be sufficient data or experience with emulsifier usage and GRVs that would support this requirement. In addition to the potential foaming issues, this may cause increased logistical and operational inefficiencies with the use of - the GRV that will. reduce the efficiency of the GRV at collecting spent ADF. The ability of the GRV to begin collecting fluid as soon as practical is essential in the successful rec overy of spent ADF. Many airports do not employ the use of emulsifiers with their GRVs and still achieve reliable collection of spent ADF. The EPA should eliminate the emulsifier use requirement stated in §449.20(b)(1)(i)(B) from the ELG. Response: See t he response to comment (GRV_OP_IMPACTS) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, Comment Excerpt 7. L_BPT/BCT - EPA must set BPT/BCT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 155 (ATA) EPA Must Develop BPT and BCT in This Rulemaking Because

– Despite Assertions to the Contrary

– by Establishing ADF Collection and Treatment Standards It Is Regulating a Conventional Pollutant (BOD), Not a Non - Conventional Pollutant (COD) As discussed below , EPA has made the judgment that COD is the appropriate “regulated pollutant” for the ADF portion of this rulemaking. By designating this nonconventional pollutant as the “regulated pollutant,” and then developing a proposal only at the BAT level, the Agen cy has avoided the need to characterize the levels of treatment that would be needed when applying the cost - effectiveness tests applicable to BPT and the two - part cost sensitivity analysis that the Congress had mandated for BCT to that “same pollutants” (i .e., BOD). Stated more directly, by asserting that COD rather than BOD is the appropriate pollutant to be regulated, EPA deprives the regulated industry of the more robust cost and other protections to which it is entitled under law. More importantly, the bald assertion that the appropriate “regulated pollutant” is COD rather than BOD, facilitates the imposition of BAT, which is potentially much more stringent and costly than BPT or BCT. We cannot know whether BAT is in fact more stringent and costly than B PT and/or BCT because EPA has failed to tell us what BPT and BCT are. What we do know is that, if BOD (a conventional pollutant) is the appropriate regulated pollutant, EPA would have no choice but to set BPT, then undertake a two - pronged analysis of BCT t o determine whether the incremental costs of upgrading from BPT to BCT are justified. That is, the analysis would be: (1) what is “average of the best performances of the facilities within the industry,” considering various factors;407 [FOOTNOTE:407 Notice at 44678, col. 3 and at 44679, col. 1. While the Agency reserves the ability to impose more stringent controls than achieved by the average best performances, it does so only if it determines that “existing performance is uniformly inadequate.” The Admini strative Record establishes that the opposite is true.] and (2) whether the imposition of BCT could be justified given the incremental reductions in pollutants emitted into the environment and the incremental increase in costs.408 [FOOTNOTE:408 See Technic al Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category at 13 - 2 to 13 - 3 (2004).] This obviously is a much different analysis than that applicable when imposing BAT: i.e., wh ether the proposed technology is “available” and “economically achievable.” Again, it is not possible to know whether the proposed BAT is indeed more stringent and costly than BPT409 or BCT because EPA has not done the analysis necessary to ascertain the i ssue.[FOOTNOTE:409 Of course, if EPA determines that BPT represents the highest level of control that is “economically achievable,” BAT is set to be equivalent to BPT. We note that even if EPA were correct to deem COD as the “regulated pollutant” it cannot escape its statutory duty to determine BPT, if it determines BAT can be justified.]415 Indeed, it is beside the point: the regulated pollutant under this rule should be BOD, not COD, and EPA must provide the analysis that supports selection of BPT and, if ju stified, BCT. We find EPA’s assertion that it may establish only BAT and forego establishing BCT “[b]ecause the BAT controls in this rule also control the same pollutants as would be controlled by . . . BCT,”410 wholly unsupportable as a legal matter. BAT and BCT by definition control different pollutants, non - conventional pollutants in the former case, conventional in the latter. Within the context of the CWA it simply makes no sense to assert that BCT would control the “same pollutants” as BAT. We believe on the other hand that this statement “proves too much”

– that is, it unintentionally discloses that EPA understands that the “pollutants” it is controlling are not COD or BOD per se. Response: See essay below. L_BPT/BCT - EPA must set BPT/BCT Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 141 Note also that we are applying the POTW test portion of the BCT cost test as if it were a benchmark that applies for the entire quantity of pollutants controlled by a proposed regulatory option. Another interpretati on of the BCT cost test focuses only on the incremental regulatory benefit associated with moving from BPT technologies to BCT technologies. Hence, EPA might assert that there is no benchmark applicable to the increment from baseline waste load to BPT, nor from baseline to BCT, where BCT is more stringent than BPT. We disagree. The BCT cost test analysis

– based on the premise that no ELG focusing on conventional pollutants should cost more than $0.86 per pound of all conventional pollutants, including BOD5 , – should be used as the general benchmark for the any applicable technology standard, as well as for any increment of more advanced controls from more advanced technologies (i.e., from BPT to BCT). If the BCT increment is not supposed to cost any more th an $0.86 per pound of conventional pollutants removed, then the prior increment from baseline to BPT certainly should not cost more than $0.86 per pound either. Certainly Congress did not intend a situation where the cost - reasonableness requirement for the BCT increment would be less stringent than that for the BPT increment. Response: See essay below. Essay for Comment Code L_BPT/BCT Response to Comments on EPA's Decision Not to Set BPT Limits for Pavement Deicing and on Selecting COD as the Regulated Parameter for New Source Performance Standards A. EPA's Decision Not to Set BPT Limits in the Final Rule for Pavement Deicing As EPA explained in the proposal, the CWA provides for two increasingly stringent levels of technology - based controls on discharges of pollutants from existing sources. BPT represents the first level of control applicable to all pollutants. BCT and BAT represent the second level of control for conventional and toxic/nonconventional pollutants, respectively. EPA explained t hat it considered whether in this rule, it was necessary to establish BPT and BCT limits, given that ADF and pavement deicing fluid were proposed to be controlled at the more stringent BAT level. Because the proposed BAT controls in this rule would also c ontrol the same pollutants as would be controlled by BPT or BCT limits, EPA explained it was not necessary to propose BPT and BCT effluent limitation guidelines for the Airport Deicing Category. In other words, even if BPT were set at a less stringent leve l, the BAT requirements for the (partial) collection and treatment of the same wastestream with the same pollutants would be controlling. Similarly, even if there were conventional pollutants in the wastestream, and BCT were set for those pollutants, BAT collection and treatment requirements for the other pollutants in the416 wastestream would be controlling. EPA recognized that it has proposed, in the past, all three levels of control, BPT, BCT and BAT for various industries even where the same pollutants a nd wastestream were at issue. The Agency, however, solicited comments on this approach because it represents significant resource savings for EPA in terms of analysis and rulemaking process while not sacrificing any environmental protection. A trade as sociation commenter disagreed that EPA may forego setting BPT, claiming that the Agency is required to do so by the CWA. It claims that not setting BPT limitations would represent a novel approach and interpretation of the Act by EPA that is not authorize d by the Act and that, in any event, the Agency cannot adopt without a sound justification. EPA concludes, however, that its decision not to set BPT limitations is authorized by the statute and fully justified in this case. Note that in the final rule, t his issue only pertains to whether BPT limits should be established for pavement deicing, which is the only activity for which the final rule establishes uniform technology - based regulations for existing sources. The commenter first claims that EPA has a non - discretionary duty under the Act to establish BPT limitations, citing the language of CWA Section 304(b). This argument ignores, however, that Congress intended the technology - based limitations of the Act as a series of graduated levels of control. See the Supreme Court's description of the Act in Entergy Corp. v. EPA , 129 S. Ct. 1498 (2009), explaining that Congress envisioned BPT limitations to apply during an "initial implementation period" (Id. at 1506), and that following this "transition period ," the "stricter" BAT level would apply (later amended to specify BCT, instead of BAT, for conventional pollutants) (Id. at 1507). The BAT standard "was meant to ease industry's transition to the new technology - based regime" (Id., dissent at 1519). It is now beyond the July, 1989 statutory deadline for facilities to comply with BAT levels of technology - based controls. Therefore, the "stricter" BAT standards, in practice, supersede the BPT standards (or in some cases, may be set equal to BPT where no furt her technology controls beyond BPT controls are technologically available and economically achievable). In either case -- whether BAT is set equal to BPT or at a stricter level -- setting BPT limits for the pavement deicers would have no practical applica tion, since the BAT limit would be controlling. 2 To be sure, BPT limitations may still have relevance in other effluent guidelines - e.g., where establishing BPT limits is necessary (which it is not here; see next section) as a baseline for evaluating the additional costs of an incremental BCT level of control. However, in light of Congress's intention to supersede BPT controls with stricter levels of control on a specific timeline, it is not necessary to interpret the statute to require BPT to be establi shed in all cases, however far down the road from the Act's initial implementation period. EPA continues to believe that its interpretation of the Act as allowing the Agency 2 . Ind eed, had EPA established BPT in this rulemaking for pavement deicing, it would have been set at the same level as the final BAT regulations. The record for this rule reflects that currently, about 90 percent of chemical pavement deicers applied nationwide do not contain urea. The most widely used pavement deicer is potassium acetate, which represents 63 percent of all chemical pavement deicers applied nationwide. Thus, the technology identified by EPA as BAT

– use of only non - urea deicers

– in addition to being identified as the best available technology, would also represent the BPT level of control on the grounds that it represents the “average of the best” performers in the industry. EPA also found, as noted in the preamble discussion of BAT, that the use of only non - urea deicers is safe, technologically feasible, and available across the industry. In addition, in setting BPT, EPA also considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. Given that the co st of the BAT rule is estimated at roughly $3.5 million in annual costs, and given the significant effluent reduction benefits of the rule as described in the preamble and support documents, the use of only non - urea airfield deicers would be an acceptable BPT technology under this consideration of effluent reduction costs and benefits.417 not to establish BPT for the Airports category -- which in the final rule means n ot setting BPT for pavement deicers -- is reasonable and consistent with Congressional intent. We do not believe that Congress intended in the Act to mandate setting BPT in all cases, once the deadline for stricter levels of controls has passed, where doi ng so would, by definition in the statute itself, provide no additional environmental protection. Under the proposal, the BPT issue was also relevant to the commenter's claim that EPA should have chosen to set ADF limits on the basis of a conventional p ollutant (BOD 5 ) rather than a non conventional pollutant (COD). Setting limitations on the basis of a conventional pollutant, it claims, would have led EPA to establish both BPT and BCT regulations. However, the final rule no longer sets uniform technolo gy - based requirements for ADF treatment for existing sources, so the issue of having to set BPT, as a predicate for setting BCT regulations for ADF, is no longer relevant. B. Selection of COD as the Regulated Parameter for New Source Performance Standard s EPA received trade association comments questioning the Agency's use of chemical oxygen demand (COD) as an effluent limitation parameter. Specific comments include questions on whether EPA's rationale for using COD as opposed to BOD 5 as an indicator p ollutant for glycol was reasonable, and whether the agency intended to set a limit for COD or soluble COD. 1. Arguments that EPA Must Address BOD 5 , not COD, In Setting Limits for Existing Sources The comments were directed mainly to whether COD is the appropriate parameter for setting BAT regulations affecting existing sources. Commenters argued that the CWA requires EPA to identify "conventional pollutants," which expressly includes "biological oxygen demanding" pollutants such as BOD 5 . They argued that in choosing the parameter for setting ADF discharge limitations, EPA was required to choose BOD 5 , which is a conventional pollutant, rather than COD, the parameter chosen by EPA. As a conventional pollutant, BOD 5 is subject to BCT limits for existing sources under the CWA, rather than BAT limits. The commenters claim that by choosing to regulate COD rather than BOD 5 , EPA has avoided having to set BCT limits that would apply to BOD 5 as a conventional pollutant, and has avoided the rigorous cost tests that are required to justify a BCT limit. As noted above, however, for existing sources, the final rule does not set uniform ADF collection or treatment requirements - i.e., it does not set nationwide technology - based limitations for discharges from AD F use. Therefore, the main concern expressed by industry commenters -- that for ADF controls at existing sources, EPA should not have set BAT limits, but should have set BCT limits instead -- is no longer relevant to the final rule. However, the final ru le does set ADF treatment requirements on the basis of limiting COD for new sources . EPA therefore responds below to the remaining comments. 2. COD as an Indicator of ADF for New Source Performance Standards EPA maintains that COD is appropriate and w ithin the Agency’s discretion to choose as the parameter on which to set new source performance standards. EPA has discretion to determine what p ollutant parameters are appropriate to regulate as pollutants of concern in an effluent guideline. See, e.g., Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. EPA, 286 F.3d 554 (EPA had discretion not to regulate color as a pollutant of concern in the effluent guidelines for the pulp and paper industry), citing Maier v. EPA, 114 F.3d 1032 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1014 (1997) ("When we apply the deference due an administrative agency which Chevron mandates, the permissive nature of the statute implies broad agency discretion in selecting the appropriate manner of regulation” (quotes and internal citation omitted)). The C WA defines pollutant broadly to include "dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage418 sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, munici pal and agricultural waste (CWA section 502(6). ) See NRDC v. EPA , 822 F.2d 104, 109 (D.C. Cir. 1987)("The term 'pollutant' is broadly defined . . . "); U.S. v. Hammel , 551 F.2d 107, 110 (6th Cir. 1977)(noting that the definition is set forth in "broad g eneric terms.") Chemical oxygen demand is a pollutant in and of itself. See BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Costle , 598 F.2d 637, 651 (1st Cir. 1979). COD is the oxygen requirement of organic matter in water. COD easily fits the statutory definition. COD is also an indicator of other pollutants in the effluent and EPA has chosen to promulgate COD limitations because they control oxygen demand from ADF. The definition of pollutant is not limited to those terms that are specifically listed in the statute at section 502(6). See NWF v. Gorsuch , 693 F.3d 156, 174 n. 56 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Sierra Club v. Cedar Point Oil Co. , 73 F.3d 546, 565 (5th Cir. 1996). In addition, stormwater discharges from airports in their entirety are "industrial waste," a nonconventio nal pollutant under the CWA, and EPA is not required to single out specific constituents or parameters in the discharge. See Northern Plains Resource Council v. Fidelity Exploration and Development Co. , 325 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2003). EPA has a reasonab le basis for selecting COD, instead of BOD 5 , as the indicator parameter on which to base NSPS in the final rule. Some commenters raised issues on EPA's selection of COD instead of BOD 5 as an indicator parameter. Others, such as the Philadelphia Airport, agreed with EPA's selection. Specific comments against EPA's selection include: EPA's rationale of why COD is a better indicator parameter is not accurate, COD does not adequately reflect the Dissolved Oxygen available for treatment in a biological treatm ent system, and there is implied Congressional mandate to address BOD 5 . Each of these is discussed in more detail below. EPA presented four reasons in the proposed rule as to why it selected COD as the indicator pollutant for ADF discharges: **•** While both BOD 5 and COD parameters are good indicators of the glycol - based oxygen demand component of deicing stormwater, COD will also capture the oxygen demand from nitrogen and other organic components of the stormwater that may not be represented in a BOD 5 resul t. **•** COD analyses are simple to conduct and can be measured in real time compared to a 5 - day test for BOD. **•** COD eliminates the need to consider receiving water temperature when evaluating water quality concerns. **•** Toxic ADF additive compounds in deicing storm water may have a negative and variable affect on the acclimation of the active cultures used in BOD analysis, making the method less robust than COD analysis for these wastewaters. Comments in response argued that EPA had not proven that COD will also ca pture the oxygen demand from nitrogen and other organic components of the stormwater. Furthermore, nitrogen is not associated with ADF and is being regulated separately as part of the airfield deicing stormwater requirements. EPA agrees that it is addres sing nitrogen concerns primarily (specifically the generation of ammonia from urea degradation) through regulation of ammonia as N and that the primary purpose of the COD indicator pollutant is to address organic components of ADF treatment. Commenters a lso argued that COD measurement in "real time" versus the five days required for the BOD 5 test was not a valid reason for selection of COD as the regulated pollutant. EPA disagrees and concludes that COD is the appropriate pollutant for regulation because it can be measured quickly, accurately, and allows a treatment operator to ensure optimal operation. Data provided by the industry and the manufacturer of the AFB system demonstrate that it is industry practice to evaluate treatment419 effectiveness and syste m control by measuring the COD of the system effluent. Specifically, the record demonstrates that industry uses COD because the BOD 5 analyses requires five days to obtain a result and does not enable a system operator to obtain invaluable feedback to eval uate treatment system control and effectiveness in real time allowing for optimal treatment system operation. In addition, EPA notes that commenters' remarks concerning consideration of receiving water temperature when evaluating water quality concerns u sing a BOD 5 value vs. COD were misstated. EPA agrees that organic compounds like glycol might degrade at a slower rate in cold receiving waters; however BOD 5 effluent limits are not established on receiving water temperature, but on treatment system perfo rmance. For example, secondary treatment effluent limitations for BOD 5 from publicly owned treatment works are established on treatment system performance, and compliance with the BOD 5 limitation requires the POTW to measure BOD 5 using an approved analyti cal method. That method requires sample analysis be conducted at 20o C, regardless of the receiving water temperature. Therefore establishing an effluent limitation based on COD is appropriate for the airport deicing rule because receiving water temperat ure is not a factor in either of these analytical methods used to determine compliance. Finally, commenters argued that widespread use of BOD 5 in favor of COD analyses presupposes that any effect of toxicity on BOD testing can be accounted for through p roper analysis. In evaluating pollutants of concern for deicing - related stormwater, EPA noted that there are additives to ADF, which may exert toxicity above that caused by the oxygen demand of the glycol components of these fluids. Until the effects of these additive compounds are further understood, EPA maintains that their presence in deicing stormwater (which was confirmed through EPA's sampling efforts) may cause negative and variable affects on the acclimation of the active cultures used in BOD anal ysis. This issue is not a factor for COD analysis. 3. COD versus Soluble COD as a Regulated Pollutant EPA proposed to establish a numeric limit for COD for direct discharges of collected ADF based on anaerobic fluidized bed treatment. EPA calculated t he proposed COD limit from long term sampling data from Albany Airport. EPA received comments in support of its use of Albany sampling data for setting the numeric limit. However, commenters correctly noted that while EPA proposed to establish a COD limi t, Albany filtered its sample prior to analyzing for soluble COD. Moreover, commenters stated that setting a COD limit based on soluble COD data is inappropriate because COD measurements would likely be higher than the proposed limit. EPA agrees with the commenters that the Albany data upon which it developed the proposed limit reflects COD that is filtered. As a result, today's final rule includes a standard operating procedure for airports to filter compliance samples prior to analysis for COD. L_CONTRARY - Rule is contrary to law Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 153 (ATA) EPA Impermissibly Failed to Develop Proposed “BPT” and “BCT” Standards as a Part of This Rulemaking In the Proposed Rule, EPA affirmatively declined

– for the first time in the 34 - year history of the ELG program

– to identify BPT and BCT. EPA asserts it is taking this entirely novel approach “because the BAT controls in this rule also control the same pollutants as would be controlled by BPT or BCT limits” and, with respect to BCT only, “because these limitations apply only to conventional pollutants such a s BOD5 and total suspended solids and this effluent guideline regulates only nonconventional pollutants (chiefly COD and ammonia).”402 EPA also notes that it “solicits comments on this approach,” i.e., failing for the first time in its history to develop B PT and BCT, “because it represents significant resource savings for EPA in terms of analysis and rulemaking process while not420 sacrificing any environmental protection.” 403 EPA does not clarify whether its (wholly unsubstantiated) claim that taking this ap proach yields “significant resource savings . . . without sacrificing environmental protection” is also offered as a justification for its proposed “approach.” As discussed below, EPA’s proposed approach is illegal. At the outset, we note that the Agency c oncedes that the approach its proposes to take in this rulemaking is entirely novel

– “EPA recognizes that it has proposed, in the past, all three levels of control, BPT, BCT and BAT for various industries even where the same pollutants and wastestreams we re at issue.” 404 A review of EPA’s webpage devoted to the ELGs it has promulgated bears this out

– indeed, in no instance has EPA failed to promulgate BPT.405 EPA may not deviate from its established interpretation of governing statutes, even if the devia tion could be deemed “reasonable” and given due deference by a court. It cannot deviate so substantially in its decisional process in this one rule without a sound justification that distinguishes the present case from the Agency’s consistent past practice . Such inconsistency is grounds for finding agency action arbitrary and capricious. Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 981 (U.S. 2005). Such deviation certainly cannot be justified on the mere grounds (even if substant iated, which it is not in this context) that it saves resources or does not compromise some broader statutory objective (e.g, environmental protection406). [FOOTNOTE:406 As explained below, we believe this approach does compromise environmental objectives because the Agency is focused on chemical oxygen demand rather than

– as Congress required under the CWA biological oxygen demand.] The reason is simple and rooted in our fundamental law: The government cannot regulate according to one set of principles ap plicable to one party and another set of principles applicable to everyone else. Further, the Agency cannot deviate from its established interpretation of the statutory provisions governing promulgation of ELGs through this rulemaking, which is applicable to only a narrow portion of interested parties. That is, unless and until the Agency undertakes a separate, more inclusive process for changing its interpretation of the statutory provisions governing promulgation of ELGs, it cannot follow the changed posi tion in this rulemaking. We also note that whether the proposed approach is legally viable does not depend on whether the public is able to articulate a reason or reasons the approach is invalid

– to the contrary, it falls to the Agency to establish the le gality of its approach. That is, whether it may pursue the proposed “approach” depends on whether the Agency can articulate a legal basis for following the approach, not on whether the public can establish that the approach is illegal. In any event, it is not good public policy for the government to take action that it recognizes may not be consistent with its legal obligations. The Agency should not pursue this course unless it is convinced that it is consistent with its legal obligations, even if not fulf illing those obligations would reap “significant resource savings.” Having raised the issue

– both by soliciting comments and by proposing this course

– the Agency is now under an affirmative obligation to explain the legality of following that course. R esponse: See essay for comment code L_BPT/BCT (above) L_CONTRARY - Rule is contrary to law Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 154 EPA Has a Non - Discretionary Duty Under the CWA to Establish BPT, BCT and BAT When EPA develops an ELG, it has a no n - discretionary duty under the plain language of the CWA to identify BPT, BCT, and BAT. Section 304(b) of the Act establishes that obligation unambiguously: (b) For the purposes of adopting or revising effluent limitations under this Act the Administrator shall, after consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested persons, publish within one year of enactment of this title, regulations, providing guidelines for effluent limitations, and, at least annually thereafter, revise, i f appropriate, such regulations. Such regulations shall

— (1)(A) identify, in terms of amounts of constituents and chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants, the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the b est practicable control technology currently available for classes and categories to point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works); . . . (2)(A)421 identify, in terms of amounts of constituents and chemical, physical, and biological characteristic s of pollutants, the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the best control measures and practices achievable including treatment techniques, process and procedure innovations, operating methods, and other alternatives for clas ses and categories of point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works); . . . (3) . . . and (4)(A) identify, in terms of amounts of constituents and chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants, the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology (including measures and practices) for classes and categories of point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works);....33 U.S.C. § 1314(b) (emphasis added). I nitially and most directly, then, it is beyond EPA’s authority under the CWA to decide against identifying BPT or BCT. Again, savings of resources or consistency with some broader statutory objective will not excuse ignoring Congress’ unequivocal and unamb iguous directive that EPA “shall identify” each specified level of control. EPA simply has no choice but to devote the resources necessary to meet this statutory mandate. Response: See essay for comment code L_BPT/BCT (above) L_CONTRARY - Rule is contra ry to law Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 151 (ACI) In sum, EPA’s proposed collection standards compliance scheme is unpredictable and arbitrary. Setting a collection standard may be consistent with the ELG program, but mandating a model tec hnology on the one hand, or delegating to the permitting authorities the obligation to derive comparable compliance technologies on the other, is not consistent with the CWA

. Response: See essay for comment code L_BPT/BCT (above) L_NOTICE - EPA has failed to provide proper notice Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 165 (ATA) EPA Fails to Provide Proper Notice EPA’s description of its analysis does not match the analysis that EPA in fact did. This amounts to saying one thing and doing anoth er. While the deviations in analysis from the description EPA provides likely reflect mathematical and other errors, the fact remains that EPA’s description of its analysis does not match the analysis it conducted. This amounts to a failure to notify the p ublic adequately of the underlying rationale for its decision. In addition, the Proposed Rule fails to identify the means by which EPA reached conclusions that are the basis of the Proposed Rule, including, without limitation, its conclusions as to the exp ected performance of model technologies and its costing of those technologies. Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. In the record for the proposed rule, EPA fully described the basis for its conclusions as to the expected performance of model tec hnologies and its costing of those technologies. See sections 9 and 11 of the proposed rule Technical Development Document, and technical memos in the proposed rule record, sections 3 and 4. Similarly, the record for this final rule relies on these same analyses and conclusions, or it describes where EPA has made changes in the analysis for the final rule based on data received following proposal or for other reasons. None of the changes since proposal required additional public notice and comment, since they all are only minor changes from the proposal or otherwise represent a logical outgrowth of the proposal.422 Apart from EPA's conclusions concerning the performance and costing of model technologies, the commenter does not identify any other specific c oncerns, but merely states very generally that "EPA's description of its analysis does not match the analysis it conducted." EPA disagrees with the commenter. The descriptions in the record of EPA's analyses do adequately describe the Agency's actual ana lyses. Moreover, the commenter has given no details or way to identify which specific description of EPA's analysis it believes was inadequate for providing proper public notice. In fact, EPA's analyses supporting this rule are extensive, as is the high volume of documentation in the record. Given that this comment does nothing to identify the specific analysis that it believes is inadequate, EPA is unable to understand whatever further specific concerns the commenter may be trying to raise, and therefor e we are not able to respond further to this comment. L_REMOVE_RULE - EPA should not regulate w/ ELG or should repropose Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 6 (ATA) The ELG Program Cannot Be Applied to this Industry Consistent With the CWA Nat ional, Uniform Standards of the Type Called for Under the ELG Program Cannot Be Reasonalby Applied to this Industry As EPA recognizes, airport deicing is shaped by a complex array of site - specific factors. As a result, the ELG program, which depends on the implementation of uniform national standards cannot account effectively for the variability inherent in this industry. The Record here demonstrates how manifold variability across this industry precludes the derivation of coherent, national standards appl icable to stormwater effluent. Indeed, as the following excerpts demonstrate, the Record is replete with statements acknowledging this reality and the degree to which it distinguishes the “airport deicing industry” from industries EPA typically addresses i n the ELG program: In many other industrial sectors, wastewater is typically generated and handled in confined systems such as reactors, pipes and pumps. Wastewater flows are carefully managed in these systems, and under normal operations all wastewater is directed to the facility’s treatment system or to a POTW. In aircraft deicing operations, the chemicals are sprayed outdoors in a comparatively unconfined, usually designated setting, and there is a high likelihood that some pollutants will bypass the tre atment system. Setting a minimum collection rate in the proposed rule, based on available technology, will require an airport to reduce significantly its level of uncontrolled discharges in an economically achievable 24 manner. The airlines’ process of app lying ADF to aircraft through high pressure spraying, combined with their typical practices of spraying the aircraft outdoors in multiple, large unconfined (but usually designated) spaces, results in pollutants being dispersed over a wide area and entering storm drains at multiple locations. This process contrasts sharply with many other industries where pollutants are generated in confined areas, managed through a piping system, and not commingled with precipitation.25 Given the highly variable nature of s torm events, it is difficult to estimate flows or concentrations of ADF - contaminated stormwater generated at an airport. Those factors are greatly dependent on the size of the storm event associated with the discharge, drainage characteristics, ADF collect ion systems (if present), and airport operations. Additionally, due to the design of drainage systems at some airports, their discharges may occur well after a storm event has completed.26 Pollutant loadings from airport deicing operations are challenging to estimate because they are highly variable and airport - specific. Because the use of deicing and anti - icing chemicals is weather dependent, the pollutant loadings at each airport vary based on weather conditions. The pollutant loadings also vary from airp ort to airport based on each airport’s climate. In addition, the amount of applied chemical that is discharged to surface water is airport specific, based on the existing stormwater separation, collection, and/or containment equipment present at each airpo rt.27 After acknowledging the complexity and variability within the industry category, EPA nonetheless proceeds to propose the blunt application of technology - based approaches across the industry, divided only into two tiers. As a result, EPA is not able t o justify application of the derived standards to the airports that fall into the two tiers. For example, EPA itself is unable to explain the derivation of the 60% collection standard applicable to Tier One airports. The Agency is only able to assert that it “estimates that facilities effectively operating a423 centralized deicing pad recover 60% of applied glycol.”28 The Agency does not explain how this “estimate” was made or precisely what constitutes “effective operation” of the technology. In fact, the Age ncy acknowledges that achievement of any level of collection efficiency is so subject to variability that even if CDPs are operated in compliance with the technical specifications set forth in §449.20(b)(1)(ii)

– presumably its version of “effective operat ion” of CDPs

– they will not “always capture at least 60%.”29 If the model technology does not always meet the standard for which it provides the basis, it is not properly a standard. This is not meant as criticism of the Agency. We empathize with the inab ility to articulate a reasonable basis for ELGs applied to this industry precisely because we believe it is not possible to do so. In sum, and as further detailed throughout these comments, some of the factors contributing to the impossibility of regulatin g this industry through an ELG, include: 1. Unprecedented variability between airport facilities and infrastructure that dictates both the cost and the availability of model treatment technologies, including wide disparities in: a. Land availability, parti cularly for highly regulated structures; b. Facility and airport age; and c. Existing infrastructure (which in many cases has been dictated by prior NPDES permits that have driven airports to adopt management and treatment philosophies incompatible with th ose embodied by the Proposed Rule); 2. The types, intensities and operational needs of widely varying aircraft operations (including passenger and cargo operations with fundamentally different needs; hub airports serving large banks of nearly simultaneous departures in contrast with small feeder airports with scattered, infrequent departures; cargo - dominated airports; and airports serving substantial international schedules); 3 Fleet mixes ranging from schedules dominated by regional aircraft to airports s erving all classes of commercial aircraft; 4 A process -- deicing -- unlike any other source of industrial discharge ever subjected to an ELG because it comes into existence, has its intensity defined by, and ceases to generate wastewater solely as a functio n of weather - related events that require incident - specific responses directly affecting safety of aircraft passengers and the general public; 5 A wastestream whose volume and concentration are almost exclusively a function of stormwater runoff and snow mel t; 6 A wastestream whose volume is a direct function and result of a critical safety activity that does not lend itself readily to regulatory constraints; 7 The continuous and rapid evolution of deicing practices and materials that have and continue to cha nge deicing operations at a fundamental level, making static regulation difficult and, (in critical respects) counter - productive; and 8 Infrastructure of a complexity and cost comparable to those of municipal wastewater collection systems and not the indus trial plant or land area addressed by other ELGs. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform ADF collection or treatment requirements for existing airports. It does, however, set requirements for pavement deicing at new and existing airports, an d ADF collection and treatment requirements at new airports. With respect to ADF collection and treatment at existing airports, based on the information from commenter and others, EPA determined that none of the ADF collection technologies considered for today’s final rule represents the “best available technology” for the entire category. See preamble discussion at V.B.4. As explained there, EPA concluded that BAT determinations should continue to be made on a site - specific basis because such determinati ons appropriately consider site specific operational constraints (e.g., traffic patterns), land availability, safety considerations, and potential impacts to flight schedules. Additionally, industry and FAA expressed overarching concerns about possible de lays and economic impacts that could result from the technology bases, both at specific airports and nationwide. As was the case with land constraints, the confounding factors that need to be considered to evaluate possible delays that may be associated w ith the technology bases do not lend themselves to a national determination using a model facility approach. Further, EPA does not have detailed site - specific information to evaluate delays on an airport by airport basis. It is not clear that this commen t intends to reach beyond the subject of ADF collection and treatment, but to the extent it does, EPA disagrees with the comment with respect to the ELGs for pavement deicing and424 the NSPS for ADF collection and treatment being promulgated in the final rule . We conclude that these regulations can be appropriately established for this industry in a national rulemaking and that it is appropriate and within the authority of the CWA to set these requirements in the final rule. It is appropriate to set a unif orm national requirement for pavement deicing in the final rule, based on EPA’s finding that product substitution of non - urea deicers represents the best technology available (or BADCT for new sources). EPA determined that product substitution is technolo gically achievable by airports across the country. Factors mentioned by the commenter regarding variability in airport design, land availability, fleet mixes, the fact that wastewater is a function of unpredictable storm events, etc., may be relevant to h ow ADF is captured and treated. But in contrast, variations among airports in these areas do not bear on whether airports in general can achieve product substitution of airfield deicers. This is especially so since the final rule allows compliance to be demonstrated by simple certification that the airport is not using urea - based deicers. Variations among airports do not affect the ability of airports in general to achieve product substitution or demonstrate compliance through certification. EPA notes t hat FAA did not raise any safety issue associated with non - urea pavement deicers at any time during development of this rule. Further, most of the industry currently uses non - urea pavement deicers. Also, to the extent that some airports might have a more difficult time financially achieving product substitution than others (e.g., due to greater storage and transportation costs, etc.), EPA’s economic analyses for the rule takes those factors into account, and this economic analysis demonstrates today’s fin al rule is achievable. Similarly, EPA finds it is appropriate to set new source performance standards for ADF collection and treatment at new airports. See comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt 117. It is irrelevant that the wastewater at issue in this final rule is a function of unpredictable storm events. EPA disagrees with commenter’s statements that establishing ELGs in such circumstances is unlike what EPA has done in past ELGs. See, e.g., the ELGs for concentrated animal feeding operations, 40 CFR Part 412. Additionally, see the TDD for details on EPA determination of 60% collection with proper use of CDPs. L_REMOVE_RULE - EPA should not regulate w/ ELG or should repropose Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 8 Removal of the Airpor t Deicing Industry from 2004 Section 304(m) List Will not Adversely Affect Efforts to Limit the Release of Deicing Fluids to the Environment For a number of reasons, removal of the Airport Deicing Industry from 2004 Section 304(m) List will not adversely a ffect efforts to limit the release of deicing fluids to the environment. Among the more significant considerations in this regard are the following factors, which are addressed elsewhere in these Comments: 1 Aircraft deicing will continue to occur within t he confines of a highly regulated industry and airport water quality impacts, have been and will continue to be appropriately and successfully addressed through the NPDES (now Multi - Sector General Permit (“MSGP”)) program

– this permit system should be lef t intact; 2 EPA already has numerous tools available to regulate deicing fluids; 3 Voluntary improvements continue to change the basic profile of the industry (e.g., the adoption of the new Society of Automotive Engineers (“SAE”) Aerospace Materials Standa rd (“AMS”) toxicity limits); and 4 The limited number of technologies capable of being implemented within the 3 - year ELG compliance period suggest a practical limit on the impact of withdrawal of the ELG. II. If the Agency pursues promulgation of a deici ng ELG, it must at least withdraw the proposed rule and provide opportunity for public notice and comment on a new proposal. As discussed above, ATA believes law compels EPA to withdraw the Proposed Rule and delete the airport deicing industry category fr om the list of industries to be regulated under the 2004 EGP.425 Should the Agency continue to pursue development of a Deicing ELG, however, it must propose a new regulation providing the public with notice of and the opportunity to comment on the new regulat ion. The current Proposal is arbitrary and capricious, and, assuming promulgation of a valid Deicing ELG is even possible, the changes required and the amount of information and analysis needed to support any regulation, including from the FAA, are so exte nsive that satisfaction of notice and comment requirements compels reproposal. At the very least, EPA should restart this process through a NODA. It Would Be Arbitrary and Capricious to Proceed With the Proposed Rule Because It Does Not Meet the Standard f or Reasoned Decisionmaking As detailed in Section I, we believe the airport deicing category cannot properly be subject to an ELG. At a minimum, EPA must address the questions raised there before it can proceed. Moreover, as detailed in Part 2 of these Com ments, there are numerous, fundamental flaws with the Proposed Rule. In the face of this, it would be arbitrary and capricious for the Agency to proceed under the framework of the current proposal. Agency decision - making is constrained by and must satisfy the standards of the federal Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 - 06. Under the APA, Agency actions and conclusions that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law,” or that are “in exce ss of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right” are unlawful. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2); see, e.g., American Coke and Coal Chemicals Inst. v. EPA , 452 F.3d 930 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (reviewing ELG regulations under the arbitrary an d capricious standard); American Meat Institute v. EPA , 526 F.2d 442 (7th Cir. 1975) (same). Where an agency “‘relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an expl anation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise,’” its actions are arbitrary and capricious. American Coke and Coal Chemicals Inst. , 452 F.3d at 941, quoting Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. , 463 U.S. 29 (1983). Furthermore, agency action must be supported by and connected to the administrative record. American Petroleum Institute v. EP A , 540 F. 2d 1023 (10th Cir. 1976) (“The grounds upon which the agency acted must be clearly disclosed in, and sustained by, the record. The agency must make plain its course of inquiry, its analysis, and its reasoning.”); Grain Processing Corp. v. Train , 407 F. Supp. 96 (S. D. Iowa 1976) quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States , 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962) (“The agency must articulate a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’”). Response: EPA did not agree with the commenter that it should remove the airport deicing industrial category from its Section 304(m) list; however, what categories are listed on 304(m) is outside the scope of this rulemaking action because this action concerns what ELGs and standards apply to airport de - icing fluids. Section 304(m) requires EPA to publish a plan, that among other things, identifies categories of sources discharging toxic or non - conventional pollutants for which EPA has not published effluent limitations guidelines under sect ion 304(b)(2) or NSPS under section 306. See CWA section 304(m)(1)(B); S. Rep. No. 50, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985); WQA87 Leg. Hist. 31 (indicating that section 304(m)(1)(B) applies to ``non - trivial discharges.''). Clearly, prior to today’s final rulemaki ng, EPA had not published ELGs for this industrial category and clearly this industrial category discharges non - trivial discharges of pollutants as today’s final rule will prevent the release of millions of pounds of pollutants. In addition, EPA disagrees that volu n tary improvements in the industry in safely controlling discharges of deicing fluids means that foregoing rulemaking will not adversely affect efforts to limit such discharges. Such voluntary improvements are laudatory and EPA has discussed elsewhere the industry’s intent to implement greater pollution prevention measures, yet there is no current evidence that these measures will achieve the same level of reduction in pollutant discharges as will the final rule. In light of changes made in the final rul e, compared to the proposal, that generally reduce the scope of the rule’s requirements in light of information submitted by this commenter and others, EPA disagrees that it426 is necessary to issue a reproposal. The public has been given an appropriate oppo rtunity to comment on the provisions of the rule. Finally, while EPA agrees that many airports are subject to the MSGP, the MSGP does not have the benefit of an ELG or NSPS in establishing best available technology economically achievable discharge requir ements. Rather, the major requirements of the current MSGP establishes these requirements on a best professional judgment basis, include development of a stormwater pollution prevention plan, and consideration of source reduction measures and ADF controls . The MSGP differs from the ELG in that the ELG mandates certain requirements whereas the MSGP currently mandates consideration of various controls. L_REMOVE_RULE - EPA should not regulate w/ ELG or should repropose Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 123 2.1 - 117 (PA NY/NJ) Finally, if EPA chooses not to pursue one of the two options above, it must clearly establish a legally defensible mechanism for land - constrained airports to become exempt from the proposed standards. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform ADF collection or treatment requirements for existing airports and a new airport should have no difficulty in citing and sizing a deicing pad as they have the ability to design the airport with those facilities in mind. L_REMOVE_RUL E - EPA should not regulate w/ ELG or should repropose Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 121 EPA Should Withdraw its Proposed Rule Our comments identify a number of fundamental issues with the underlying nature of the Proposed Rule. These issues include (among others) (1) the Proposed Rule involves a process that is integrally related to conditions outside the control of airport operators; (2) the Proposed Rule involves the use of aircraft deicing fluid by the airlines, yet focuses the burden of compliance on airport operators; (3) the Proposed Rule attempts to apply uniform standards to a process that is highly site - and operation - specific; and (4) the Proposed Rule purports to include flexibility but essentially mandates the use of a limited nu mber of technologies. Moreover, the Clean Water Act already mandates stringent site - specific permitting and water quality controls to address deicing storm water discharges that, at least for the Port Authority airports, are working successfully. For those and other reasons noted in our comments, the Port Authority believes that a nationwide rule in the manner that has been proposed is not feasible or appropriate at our airports. Additional costly regulation is unnecessary

– especially at a time when airlin es are losing large amounts of money, the amount of capital dollars available for airport projects has dwindled considerably, and EPA cannot demonstrate any incremental environmental benefit associated with such expenditures. The regulatory framework under which the Port Authority currently operates helps ensure environmental protection. We are not opposed to new but appropriate and well - founded regulation. EPA’s Proposed Rule, in our opinion, is not such a regulation and would have unacceptable consequence s. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1

– 6 in this comment code. For a response to the comment that the final rule mandates technologies, see response to Tech Forcing 1226.1 excerpt #4 and 1226.1 excerpt #164.427 See responses to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1199 - 4 (code EA_GEN), EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 129 (EA_GEN) and EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1199 - 3 (TASTE/ODOR) regarding the environmental benefits of the rule. EPA disagrees that the discharges regulated by today’s rule are outside th e control of the airport. Airports are typically the responsible entity for applying airfield deicers, and regarding collection and treatment, there are many airports that EPA visited that oversee the operation of ADF collection and treatment facilities. This includes Denver International Airport, the model airport upon which the NSPS collection requirement was based. L_REMOVE_RULE - EPA should not regulate w/ ELG or should repropose Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 122 If EPA Pursues a Natio nal Deicing ELG, it Should Completely Re - Propose and Seek Additional Public Comment. Should EPA pursue national technology standards through a deicing ELG regulation, it must correct the numerous critical flaws that the Port Authority has raised in its com ments. The only logical result from such a decision must be a new Proposed Rule. Depending upon the standards it may repropose, EPA must ensure appropriate consideration of the issues raised in the Port Authority comments, including but not limited to: the underlying aircraft activity and aircraft deicing fluid use data; land availability for structural controls; treatment system cost and operational feasibility; the potential costs of additional aircraft delay; the current economics of the industry; the ai rport/tenant legal relationships and operational challenges; and other complex issues inherent to the air transportation industry. Hence, EPA should

– perhaps must

– seek additional public comment. We request a comment period of at least 120 days, so that all commenters are provided with the opportunity to review an improved EPA analytical record and rulemaking basis. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform ADF collection or treatment requirements for existing airports. It does, however, set requirements for pavement deicing at new and existing airports, and ADF collection and treatment requirements at new airports. All of the comments above apply to EPA’s consideration of ADF collection and treatment requirements at existing airports. There fore, the comments are not applicable to the final rule. L_REMOVE_RULE - EPA should not regulate w/ ELG or should repropose Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1233.1 - excerpts 1 - 4 Continental respectfully requests that the EPA withdraw the proposed rule in order to address erroneous technical data and assumptions used as a basis to develop the proposed rule. Continental is specifically addressing sections VII.B.1.C., B.3.a.8.c., E 1 and 449.20 (b)(1)(i)(D)(ii)A which discusses how EPA concluded that Best Available Technology (BAT) for airports such as Newark is a combination of deicing pads and glycol recovery vehicles. Simply stated, Newark does not have the airport land capacity t o flow all aircraft through a central deicing area and must rely on a combination of gate deicing and pad deicing in order to respond to emergency weather situations. The proposed rule, as written, does not allow the degree of flexibility necessary for space constrained airports to best address ways to control runoff associated with deicers and imposes new requirements and428 constraints that would halt operations during s uch winter weather events. As can be seen from the described actual winter weather event from December 2009, there are significant operational delays affecting thousands of passengers. Under this scenario, with a 40% reduction in flight schedule and the ro uting of only Continental aircraft to the Ballpark, it is not possible nor is it BAT for Newark. Continental, along with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, are continuously working together to minimize operational impacts to the environment. C ontinental will continue to work with the EPA on these issues, but does not believe that the proposed ELG regulations adequately allow feasible emergency actions taken to protect Continental’s response to weather related to public safety in winter weather events and believes that existing federal and state storm water regulations adequately address aircraft deicing operations. What is necessary is withdrawal of the proposed rule under such circumstances (addressed in Comment 3) and a new approach to addres sing these concerns of the EPA, working with the FAA, airport authorities, airlines and all other stakeholders who are affected by the proposed rule. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for ex isting airports, for the reasons discussed in the preamble. LOAD_COMPARE - Comparison of costs to load removals Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 147 EPA’s “Cost and Pollutant Reduction Comparisons” Are Flawed As noted elsewhere in these Comments, the “cost - effectiveness” of the Proposed Rule should not and cannot be evaluated by combining the costs of the wholly distinct and completely separable costs/ removals associated with the requirements applicable to ADF and those applicable to pavement deicing. The proposed BAT applicable to pavement deicing (substitution of urea - based products388) achieves large pollutant removals at

– relative to the costs asso ciated with ADF requirements

– low cost. [FOOTNOTE:388 EPA has not estimated the costs associated with capture of pavement runoff and treatment to the proposed standard for ammonia - as nitrogen; but its preliminary analysis concluded such costs would be so large as to be prohibitive.] As a result, evaluating the cost - effectiveness of the Proposed Rule as a whole masks the high costs associated with the requirements applicable to ADF. Response: In evaluating the regulatory options for today’s final rule, EPA appropriately considered the total cost of each of the three options as well as the total pollutant removals for each of the three options. For two of the options evaluated, this included costs and removals associated with aircraft deicing discharge c ontrols. EPA selected the third option, which established restrictions to control airfield pavement deicing discharges only, for existing sources. As such, the rule would result in a cost of $0.21/pound of pollutant removed from discharges. LOAD_COMPARE - Comparison of costs to load removals Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 27 Page 44702, Section VIII. C. EPA indicates that a total of 218 primary airports will be regulated under the proposed ELG but only 70 total airports will be required to conduct any additional collection and treatment than what they are already doing. So, it can be assumed that at least 148 of the airports under429 the proposed ELG already collect at a level of at least 20% and again assumed that many collect at a level above 20%. Therefore, the proposed ELG will allow an untold number of airports to collect and treat less deicing wastewater than they currently are doing. Was this potentially significant cost savings included in the cost estimates? EPA needs to determine how m uch ADF each of the 218 covered airports is currently collecting and not allow any level below that level on a five year average basis. Response: The applicability of the final rule is described in the preamble. Further, for the reasons explained in th e preamble, the final rule does not establish uniform requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing facilities. Such discharges will continue to be established on a site - specific BPJ basis. Rather the final rule established uniform requirement s for airfield deicing discharge controls at existing and new airports and aircraft deicing discharges controls at new airports. This comment is specific to aircraft deicing discharge controls at existing airports and is not relevant to the final rule. However, in evaluating the regulatory options for today’s final rule, EPA estimated incremental costs (and associated incremental pollutant reductions) for those in - scope discharges that do not currently have technology in place that would enable then to meet the requirements associated with the regulatory options. See the Technical Development Document for more information. LOAD_COMPARE - Comparison of costs to load removals Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 138 The Proposed Rule is not cost - effective for controlling any of the classes of pollutants in airport deicing wastewaters

– toxic pollutants, nutrients, or conventional pollutants, including oxygen - demanding pollutants. EPA obscures this fact by claiming tha t the regulation addresses COD as a member of a fourth class of pollutants

– nonconventional pollutants

– for which traditional cost - effectiveness benchmarks do not exist. In fact, COD is one of several possible alternative measures of oxygen demand, and t he cost effectiveness of this Proposed Rule with respect to abatement of oxygen demand should be evaluated relative to traditional ELG cost - effectiveness benchmarks for conventional and oxygen - demanding pollutants. EPA should not be able to disregard the basic cost - effectiveness

– or in this case cost ineffectiveness

– of its Proposed Rule by manipulating legal technicalities to hide behind a mirage intentionally created through its “nonconventional” pollutant choice. Response: See the EPA response to c omment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, excerpt 147. Additionally, the applicability of the final rule is described in the preamble. Further, for the reasons explained in the preamble, the final rule does not establish requirements for aircraft deicing disch arges at existing facilities. Such discharges will continue to be established on a site - specific BPJ basis. Rather the final rule established requirements for airfield deicing discharge controls at existing and new airports and aircraft deicing discharge s controls at new airports. However, EPA notes that the Clean Water Act does not direct the Agency to perform a “cost effectiveness” analysis as defined by the commenter. Rather, for establishing BPT for existing sources, the Act requires EPA to conside r the costs relative to effluent reductions. EPA has considerable discretion in determining which pollutants to include in such analyses. Further, EPA has historically included non - conventional pollutants in its analyses of cost/pollutant reduction compa risons. The430 requirements of this rule meet either the BPT, BAT or BADCT (applicable to NSPS) tests specified in the statute. Finally, EPA is only required to compare the cost of removing conventional pollutant parameters in a “cost reasonableness” test when setting BCT. Because this rule did not establish BCT, this comparison is not required. LOAD_COMPARE - Comparison of costs to load removals Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 139 The Proposed Airport Deicing ELG Is Not Cost - Effective for Toxic Pollutants The proposed BAT requirements applicable to EPA’s aircraft deicing proposal would abate priority and nonconventional pollutants at a toxicity - weighted cost per pound of nearly $12,000/TWPE. This far exceeds the $857/TWPE 112 [Footnote 112: Expressed in 2006 dollars, to be consistent with the costs for EPA’s Proposed Rule.] representing the most expensive previous ELG that abated toxic pollutants. EPA has no justification for subjecting the aviation industry to an ELG that is 12 times more c ostly than the most costly prior ELG, from the perspective of cost - effectiveness in abating discharge of toxic pollutants. Neither the entire rule nor either of the two major sections of the proposed rule (provisions regarding ADF and provisions regarding pavement deicing) is cost - effective with respect to abating toxic and nonconventional pollutants. The following table illustrates this analysis. [See submittal for Table 14. Cost - Effectiveness for Toxicity] Compare against $857 per TWPE (in 2006$), highest figure among previous ELGs An Excel workbook file is attached that provides the data, references and procedures for these toxicity cost - effectiveness calculations, as well as for the calculations (presented below) regarding cost - reasonableness for convent ional pollutants and for nutrients. Note that all of these calculations are based on EPA’s estimates of costs and pollutant removals for the different classes of pollutants affected by the proposed ELG. We believe, as detailed elsewhere in these comments, that EPA has significantly underestimated the costs of the Proposed Rule and overestimated the pollutant removals that the Proposed Rule will achieve. Hence, the cost per pound or per pound - equivalent at which the Proposed Rule achieves these removals is s ubstantially underestimated when relying upon EPA’s estimates. If finalized as proposed, the Airport Deicing ELG would be significantly more cost - ineffective than represented above.113 [Footnote 113: Note also that we performed these toxicity cost - effecti veness calculations using freshwater toxicity weighting factors for each of the priority and nonconventional pollutants for which EPA has estimated removals and/or increases due to the proposed ELG: ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, potassium acetate, and ammonia. In fact, many of the airports that EPA believes discharge significant quantities of ADF discharge to saltwater rather than fresh water, and the freshwater toxicity weighting factors for the glycols are far higher than the saltwater factors. If we were to perform a more accurate toxicity cost - effectiveness analysis that reflects the actual fresh vs. saltwater nature of the receiving waters for each airport, the ADF provisions would be shown to abate far fewer TWPE than under our simplified analysis , and the ADF provisions would appear even more cost - ineffective than they do given our freshwater - only assumptions. For the pavement calculations, the opposite is true. The toxicity weighting factor for ammonia (from urea used for pavement deicing) is muc h higher for salt water than for fresh water, and a significant fraction of pavement urea usage occurs at airports discharging to salt water. A more accurate cost - effectiveness analysis that reflects the nature of the receiving waters would show better cos t - effectiveness figures for the pavement provisions than what we show in the table above.] Response: See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 138. Also, EPA did not reject any of the regulatory options on the basis of a co st/pollutant reduction comparison.431 LOAD_COMPARE - Comparison of costs to load removals Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 140 The Proposed Airport Deicing ELG Is Also Not Cost - Reasonable for Conventional Pollutants. The proposed BAT requirements applicable to aircraft deicing would abate conventional pollutants, including oxygen demand (BOD5), at a cost per pound of $3.82.114 [Footnote 114: Our cost - effectiveness analysis for conventional pollutants converts EPA’s estimates of load reductions for COD and ammonia into equivalent reductions in BOD5, using EPA’s estimate that there is an average of 1.67 lbs of COD per pound of BOD5 for airport deicing chemicals. See the spreadsheet detailing these calculations in Appendix F. EPA has not estimated tha t the proposed ELG requirements will abate any meaningful quantity of additional conventional pollutants beyond BOD5, such as perhaps TSS or oil and grease.] This substantially exceeds the figure of $0.86 per pound (in 2006 dollars) for the POTW benchmark portion of the BCT cost test, a figure that is not to be exceeded when considering all conventional pollutants to be controlled by an ELG. The proposed Airport Deicing ELG is not cost - reasonable for controlling conventional pollutants, including oxygen - dem and. [See submittal for Table 15. Cost - Effectiveness for Conventional Pollutants] Compare against $0.86/lb (in 2006 $), POTW Test part of BCT cost test Note that the pavement provisions of the proposed ELG do appear cost - reasonable relative to the benchmar k figure for conventional pollutants

– the pavement provisions would abate BOD5 associated with urea discharge (partly offset by an increase in BOD5 when urea is replaced with potassium acetate as a pavement deicer) at a net cost per pound of $0.50, a figu re somewhat lower than the benchmark for acceptability at $0.86 per pound. However, this pavement analysis reveals that the ADF provisions, analyzed on their own, are even more cost - ineffective for controlling conventional pollutants than they appear when EPA analyzes the Proposed Rule as a whole. We have presumed that a regulation achieving removals of COD, a nonconventional pollutant, should be evaluated relative to a cost - effectiveness benchmark that is legally applicable to BOD5 and other conventional p ollutants. We do this intentionally. COD and BOD5 are both measures of the oxygen demand that an effluent will exert in receiving waters, with the two measures differing in the ”type” of oxygen demanding chemicals that are being assessed, but the final mea sure is still oxygen demand over a length of time appropriate for that analytical method. EPA assumes, however, that the relationship between the two measures is constant across all airport deicing effluents; that the chemical oxygen demand that an effluen t will exert in receiving waters is always 1.67 times the BOD5 that the effluent will exert.115 EPA’s assumption regarding a constant relationship further supports the interchangeable nature of COD and BOD5 measurements, and the applicability of our cost - r easonable comparisons. Although the two measurements are different and reflect somewhat differing characteristics of the oxygen demand that an effluent will exert, one measure is essentially a scalar multiple of the other. In terms of cost - effectiveness be nchmarks then, any existing benchmark for one of these measures of oxygen demand can be converted into a benchmark for the other measure of oxygen demand by applying this scalar constant. The existing cost - reasonableness benchmark for conventional polluta nts (including oxygen demand) for BOD5 (should not exceed $0.86 per pound) can be converted to a benchmark for COD by dividing by 1.67, the assumed constant scalar ratio of COD to BOD5 in airport deicing effluents. Thus, if there are 1.67 pounds of COD per pound of BOD5 and an ELG option is unacceptable if it abates BOD5 at a cost per pound exceeding $0.86, then the option is equally unacceptable (not cost - reasonable) if EPA’s proposal would abate COD at a cost per pound exceeding $0.51 ($0.86 divided by th e 1.67 scalar). If an ELG is not cost - reasonable for BOD5 at a cost exceeding $0.86 per pound, then it should similarly not be acceptable at a cost of more than $0.51 per pound for COD. It should not matter how EPA chooses to measure the overall oxygen dem and

– as BOD5, COD, BOD7, ultimate BOD, carbonaceous BOD, or in any other laboratory analysis method for essentially the same oxygen demand of pollutants discharged

– the cost - reasonableness requirement that must be met should remain functionally unaffecte d. The number for the benchmark will change as a function of how it is measured, but the effective level of the benchmark and, more importantly, the underlying policy for establishing the benchmark to begin with, does not change.432 Response: See the respon se to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 139. LOAD_COMPARE - Comparison of costs to load removals Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 142 Hence, if a BCT increment is acceptable even when it removes as little as 1.16 pounds of c onventional pollutants per dollar of cost imposed (the inverse of $0.86 in cost per pound removed), the BPT increment that precedes the BCT increment should be acceptable only if it abates even more than 1.16 pounds of conventional pollutants per dollar of cost imposed. After all, cost is supposed to be less important in relation to effluent reduction benefits when establishing an advanced level of control requirements (BCT) than it is when establishing a more basic level of control requirements (BPT). EPA’ s manipulation of the Airport Deicing ELG proposal to avoid the type of analysis mandated by Congress is a fundamental problem. Furthermore, any argument regarding the relationship between a cost - effectiveness benchmark for an advanced increment of convent ional pollutant control (from BPT to BCT) relative to the potential benchmark for a less advanced increment of conventional pollutant control (from current to BPT) is rendered moot by EPA’s failure in the Proposed Rule to consider or propose any BPT at all . For the Airport Deicing ELG, EPA proposes options only for BAT (which for COD, we consider to be functionally equivalent to BCT for BOD5). Absent any consideration or proposal of BPT, there is only one increment of control that the Agency is considering: from the current level of discharge of conventional pollutants, including oxygen demand, all the way to the proposed advanced level of control represented by BAT.116 [Footnote 116: The Air Transport Association comments analyze EPA’s statutory requirement to develop BPT standards before promulgating BAT/BCT standards. ACI - NA agrees with ATA’s legal conclusions. If EPA is obligated to promulgate BPT standards concurrently or prior to BAT/BCT standards, the issue raised here regarding incremental cost is moo t. We would expect EPA to perform an appropriate cost - reasonableness analysis in any newly proposed BPT/BCT/BAT rulemaking for aircraft deicing.] The cost - effectiveness benchmark that applies generally to advanced controls for conventional pollutants, incl uding oxygen demand, should apply as a minimum requirement regardless of how EPA defines the increment to advanced controls that is being considered. The proposed regulation is not cost - effective in terms of controlling conventional pollutants, including o xygen demand. The cost per pound of conventional pollutants abated by the rule is four to five times higher than the maximum cost per pound at which controls may be required by an ELG for conventional pollutants. Response: See the EPA response to commen t EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, excerpt 140. LOAD_COMPARE - Comparison of costs to load removals Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 143 The Proposed Airport Deicing ELG Also Is Not Cost - effective for Nutrients. The proposed BAT requirements appli cable to pavement deicers would abate nutrients (total nitrogen) at a cost per pound of $23.82 in 2006 dollars. This far exceeds the several dollar cost per pound of nitrogen that EPA established as the cost - effectiveness benchmark for nitrogen nutrient co ntrol in the Meat and Poultry Products ELG promulgated in 2004.117 [Footnote 117: The Economic and Environmental Benefits Analysis for the MPP ELG is not entirely clear about what the cost - effectiveness benchmark should be for nitrogen. It appears to be in the range of several dollars per pound of N abated, and perhaps up to as much as about $10 per pound of N.] The following table shows the calculated cost effectiveness of the Proposed433 Rule in abating discharge of nutrients. [See submittal for Table 16. Co st - Effectiveness for Nutrients] Compare against several $/lb, perhaps up to $10/lb, MPP ELG The ADF provisions of the proposed rule will not abate nutrient discharges because nutrients are not a component of ADF. EPA asserts that the pavement provisions of the Proposed Rule, however, will reduce the discharge of a significant quantity of urea and/or its decomposition product ammonia, and thus a significant quantity of nitrogen. The proposed pavement provisions appear cost - effective relative to EPA’s benchma rk for nutrient control. Response: The commenter is mistaken that EPA must perform a comparison of cost in relation to nutrient pollutant reductions for establishing BAT. EPA elected to perform such an analysis for the meat products rulemaking because of the nature of that specific ELG. In evaluating the regulatory options for today’s final rule, EPA appropriately compared the total cost of each of the three options to the total pollutant removals for each of the three options. For two of the options evaluated, this included costs and removals associated with aircraft deicing discharge controls. EPA selected the third option, which established restrictions to control airfield pavement deicing discharges only, for existing sources. As such, the rule results in a cost of $0.21 per pound of pollutant discharges removed. LOAD_COMPARE - Comparison of costs to load removals Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 161 APPENDIX F cost Effectiveness Calculations [See submittal for cost effectiveness calculations] Response: See the EPA r esponse to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 139, EPA - HQ OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 140 and EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1, Comment Excerpt 143. MILTARY - Regulation should cover military airport deicing Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1204.1 - 2 As a pilot, I have a firsthand view of the deicing practices that take place every time that I fly in icing conditions. I am most familiar with the glycol - based deicing because I am a military aviator. Once sprayed on the je t’s surface, the glycol stays on the wing as the plane taxis and takes off. Even though much of the excess glycol drips on the apron where we park, some also drips on airfields as we taxi and take off, making cleanup near impossible because operations are nonstop. At training bases, there are approximately 300 takeoffs a day, which results in about 70,000 takeoffs a year. These bases would rank in the top 100 busiest U.S. airports during a one month study, and they only fly on weekdays. This results in many airplanes that need to be deiced during winter months. The proposed rule is only going to force containment and collection at publicly - owned commercial airfields. As is shown in Figure IV - 1, the first question asks, “Primary Commercial Airport?” If the an swer is no, then the airport is out of scope. The many military and privately owned airfields that conduct thousands of deicing a year should also be included. Response: EPA does not have information on military air bases indicating that, as a group, th ey are large users of aircraft deicing fluid. Therefore the Agency did not include these facilities in the scope of the final rule. The comment mentions 70,000 takeoffs a year from military bases and later concludes, "This results in434 many airplanes that ne ed to be deiced during winter months" but provides no data on ADF usage. EPA notes that it did not establish BAT for aircraft deicing controls. Therefore, no existing airport is subject to national effluent guidelines for aircraft deicing. Regarding general aviation and privately - owned airfields, EPA stated in the proposed rule, "...these airports are used mainly by small private airplanes that typically do not fly during icing conditions, and therefore are sites where little or no ADF use occurs." (7 4 FR 44685). The Agency has received no new information since the proposal which changes its assessment of this group of airfields. Military airports, like other existing airports, are subject to BPJ permitting. To the extent that a permit authority has d ata on a military facility that demonstrate that technology - based controls are appropriate, they will establish such controls. MILTARY - Regulation should cover military airport deicing Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1204.1 - 5 This regulation needs to be passed and enforced at ALL airports (including military fields) with large deicing requirements. Creating standards will reduce hazards to the water systems of local communities while keeping the economic advantage gained by the global connection due to airfield operations. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1204.1, excerpt number 2. MILTARY - Regulation should cover military airport deicing Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1207.1 - 9 We do not object to different requirements based upon number of plane departures or the amount of deicing fluid used. The federal government needs to be consistent in the treatment of "similar entities" that deice aircraft by including military facilities. The environment is no less important around mil itary facilities. We urge the USEPA to encourage the military to take a leadership role in environmental protection. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1204.1, excerpt number 2. MILTARY - Regulation should cover military airport deicing Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 8 Alaska has several military facilities that conduct deicing. At this point we do not have any information on volumes used at these facilities or what type of collection and treatment they use. Any assistance EPA can provide in the ELG or the associated final Technical Development Document would be appreciated. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1204.1, excerpt number 2. Also, while EPA doesn't have detailed information on military airports, the TDD contains information on various technologies and approaches that can be equally applied to military airports on a BPJ basis.435 MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1170 - 2 Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport is a non - hub facility located in the southeast corner of Tennessee. Snow is not a problem for the airport as the airport is in a valley surrounded by mountains. Deicing at this airport is a light misting on the leading edge of the wing for aircraft that RON to remo ve frost on occasional winter mornings. There is no runoff or any Deicing fluid to collect. The proposed ruling would require the airport to collect 20% of the deicing fluid which would be impossible as there is no fluid on the surface to collect. The airp ort would be required to purchase a glycol recovery vehicle that would not be used. The airport feels that a rule based solely on numbers of departures does not address the issue if deicing isn't occurring. The rule should be based on the number of gallons of deicing fluid used. The 100,000 gallon level would be a legitimate level to put in place requirements. The airports should be required to obtain and record the amounts of deicing fluid used by the airlines and during the deicing of runways to determine levels used. Response: For the reasons explained in the preamble, EPA is not promulgating a collection requirement for spent ADF as part of the BAT requirement, nor does the final rule limit the amount of ADF sprayed for the purposes of safe taxiing. MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1188 - 1 At this time the Gulfport - Biloxi International Airport (GPT) has an average of 7,802 annual departures over the past 5 years (T - 100 database) and more than 1,000 annual jet departures. Within an estimated 5 - 10 years GPT will surpass the threshold of 10,00 0 annual departures and 1,000 jet departures and be required to collect 20% of ADF used. Because of the warm climate on the Mississippi Gulf Coast deicing of aircraft occurs on only a few days of t e year. The application of deicing fluid is so light durin g these operations that there is normally no fluid on the surface of the apron to collect. The requirement to acquire a GRV is burdensome and impracticable when plug and pump methods would be sufficient when necessary. The estimated cost to comply with thi s requirement is $262,000 for the purchase of a GRV. At some airports the use of ADF is non - existent; Tampa (TPA), Ft. Lauderdale (I'LL), Honolulu (HNL) and Miami (MIA) come to mind. Under the proposed rule these airports would nonetheless be required to a cquire a GRV. Response: For the reasons explained in the preamble, EPA is not promulgating a collection requirement for spent ADF as part of the BAT requirement. MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1188 - 2 We believe the proposed regulation is unduly burdensome and impractical for many southern U.S. Airports. Consideration should be provided to allow less costly approaches to the limitation of Glycol effluent.436 Response: The final rule does not require ADF co llection and treatment at existing airports, however EPA agrees that airports in warm climates may have little to no ADF available for collection, and has adjusted their NSPS applicability accordingly. See the preamble for more details on NSPS applicabili ty. MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1189.1 - 2 Airports with low deicing activity should not be further restricted. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1188, Excerpt 2. MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1189.1 - 8 Airports in warmer climate areas that infrequently deice should not be subject to capture requirements. EPA should work with the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) to determine the threshold where the capture requirement begins. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1188, Excerpt 2 and the preamble to the rule. MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1203.1 - 1 FAC proposes that a de min imus level is necessary for applicability of this rule. The “Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Multi - Sector General Permit for Industrial Activities analytical monitoring requirements as published in the Federal Register, Vo lume 60, No. 189, Page 510002” states that "airport facilities which use less than 100,000 gallons of glycol based deicing/anti - icing chemicals and/or less than 100 tons of urea on an average annual basis are not required to monitor discharges resulting fr om deicing/anti - icing activities." FAC proposes that EPA use the reporting guidelines under this rule as their de minimus level for the applicability of this proposed rule. Consistent with the above referenced final rule, FAC recommends that airports that on an annual basis use less than 100,000 gallons of ADF and/or less than 100 tons of urea be exempt from the proposed rule regardless of the number of departures from an airport. The following statements should be added to the applicability section of the proposed rule: This rule does not apply to airport facilities that use less than 100,000 gallons of glycol - based deicing/anti - icing materials and/or less than 100 tons of urea on an average annual basis. Facilities that only use water for deicing activitie s are exempt from this rule. Response: EPA is not basing a de minimus level on the Multi - Sector General Permit requirements. EPA no longer requires uniform effluent limitations for control of spent ADF at existing airports, however EPA agrees that airpo rts in warm climates may have little to no ADF available for collection and has adjusted the NSPS applicability to capture new airports which are anticipated to have substantial ADF usage. See the preamble for more details on NSPS applicability.437 MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 1 Airports required to use a centralized pad should be allowed a lower cut off for the size of planes that are required to use it. Smaller planes, Design Group I and II, do not mix well with larger Design Group V aircraft. Recommend that Design Group I and II aircraft be allowed to deice off a centralized pad and only a Glycol Recovery Vehicle (GRV) 1 be required for that fluid. In addition, these design group I & II aircraf t do not use much glycol; 1,000 to 2,000 gallons per year. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1188, Excerpt 2 and the preamble to the final rule. MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 - 15 The ELG ADF collection requirement should contain a minimum deicing volume that would exempt airports with minimal deicing from complying with the collection requirements. Airports that exceed the departures threshold such that they are subject to the deicing col lection requirements but that reside in a climate where deicing rarely occurs could be required to maintain GRV or equivalent technology deicing collection regardless of the potential volume. The EPA should provide a minimum ADF deicing threshold for inclu sion into the 20% collection requirement threshold. Requiring airports with rare, low - volume deicing to invest in and operate GRVs or equivalent technology is overly burdensome. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1170, Excerpt number 2 MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1219.1 - 3 NATA assumes that the establishment of the 10,000 total departure classification is meant to offer an exemption to airports that only use a limited amount of ADF. NATA is concerned that affected airports with greater than 10,000 total annual departures but with relatively low ADF usage will face significant cost in meeting the collection and treatment requirements of the ELG without a similar, positive, environmental benef it. NATA suggests that the EPA institute, in addition to the current classification, a de minimus level of ADF usage that would exempt those airports from the collection and treatment requirements. Failure to do so would, in effect, unfairly target airport s with higher total annual departures but low ADF. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1170, Excerpt number 2 MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1221.1 - 6 A new minimum threshold criteria must be established. The EPA should include another tier of airports within the "greater than 1,000 jet departures" tier for those facilities that use less than 90,000 gallons of438 deicing fluid a year. The Air Transport Asso ciation (ATA) has evaluated airport and ADF usage data and determined that a new threshold would have minimal impact on the benefit of the rule. According to ATA analysis those airports which would be Tier Two but are not currently collecting 20% of availa ble ADF only account for 1.7% of the ADF usage nationwide. Airports that would be excluded in the state of Alaska and at other small - airport locations would therefore constitute a very small amount of the ELGs benefits. This would reduce the extremely high economic burden at airports that use small amounts of ADF due to weather conditions (both warm weather and arid, arctic locations) or have minimal flights. Alaska Air Group supports ATA's arguments for creation of a new tier and believes this would greatl y reduce the economic and operational burden with minimal environmental impact. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1170, Excerpt number 2 and the preamble to the final rule. MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 20 04 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 11 Develop Alternative Minimum Threshold for Tier Two Airports EPA has requested comment on the development of an alternative minimum threshold criteria for the scope of the rule “such as the amount of ADF used, or number of deicing opera tional days.”39 ATA has evaluated the airport and associated ADF usage data and agrees that a new minimum threshold criteria should be established to account for airports that experience infrequent or frequent - but - inconsequential deicing events. The develo pment of a minimum threshold for inclusion in the rule would have minimal impact on the benefit of the rule because analysis of the usage data indicates that those airports that would be Tier Two but are not currently collecting 20% of available ADF only a ccount for 1.7% of the ADF usage nationwide. Airports that would be excluded based on a reasonable minimum threshold, therefore, would account for only a small fraction of the rule’s expected benefits. ATA believes that EPA would be justified in setting th is new minimum threshold at an Annual Normalized ADF usage 40 of 90,000 gallons. Airports below this minimum threshold would become Tier Three airports subject to pavement deicing standards but not to the ADF collection and treatment standards created by t he ELG. This suggested threshold is based on (1) the minimal contribution of ADF at these airports and the associated limited benefit of applying this rule to airports with usage less than 90,000 gallons per year, while retaining the much larger benefits a ssociated with the Pavement Deicer BAT to which they would remain subject; (2) differences in departures and deicing event frequencies at these airports; and (3) the uncharacteristically high economic burden associated with measures required to address inf requent or inconsequential ADF usage. These factors reflect the process, engineering cost and affordability factors required to be taken into account in the development of an ELG. 41 They thus provide a sound basis for differentiating airports above the su ggested threshold from those below. Technical support for this recommendation is provided below. Of the Tier Two airports that use less than 90,000 gallons of ADF annually only 12 (representing 16.88 airports in the Airport Impact Model) would be required to implement collection and treatment technologies to comply with the rule. Together these airports account for only 1.7% of the ADF usage (weighted) nationwide and less than 2% of the COD removal attributed to the rule. These 12 airports are: BET, BHM, FW A, GSO, JNU, OKC, OME, ROA, SAT, ONT, OTZ and XNA. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1170, Excerpt number 2 and the response to EPA - HQ - OW 2004 - 0038 - 1203.1, Excerpt Number: 1.439 MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 12 Analysis of the “Jet ADF Factor” (defined as the product of annual jet departures and SOFP) indicates that the factor for Tier Two airports with usage between 90,000 and 460,000 gallons of normalized ADF is significantly di fferent than the ADF Factor for airports with usage less than 90,000 gallons. Thus, within the existing Tier Two airports, there exists a sub - group of airports characterized by either infrequent deicing events with a ‘relatively’ high number of jet departu res or frequent deicing events consisting of limited deicing of a few aircraft. In either case, airports in which less than 90,000 gallons of ADF are applied annually on average are different from other Tier Two airports and should be considered separately . Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1170, Excerpt number 2 MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 14 These factors (different weather conditions, low usage of ADF) are also expected to impact the viability of anaerobic fluidized bed (“AFB”) treatment at these stations. Specifically, influent COD loads estimated for AFB treatment systems at these airports range between 30 and 1318 lbs per day with an average of 692 lbs per day. On average, the infl uent COD loads at for these airports are five times less than those at CAK and even the largest system is one - half the size of CAK. In addition, half of these airports are expected to install AFB treatment systems with expected influent loads of approximat ely 500 lbs COD per day or less. Response: The final rule does not require uniform effluent limitations to control discharges of spent ADF at existing airports, however EPA agrees that airports in warm climates may have little to no ADF available for col lection and has adjusted their NSPS applicability to capture new airports which are anticipated to have substantial ADF usage and discharge. See the preamble for more details on NSPS applicability. MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 6 We recommend lowering the threshold specified in §449.10(a) of 460,000 gallons annual normalized ADF to 400,000 gallons. Response: The final rule does not require uniform effluent limitations to control discharges of spent ADF as part of the BAT requirement. MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 2 AAAE believes that there is a clear need for a provision in the final rule that would exempt certain440 airports from the scope cr iteria. Specifically, smaller, dry, southern airports that have minimal Aircraft Deicing Fluid (ADF) usage should not be subject to the capture requirements of the rule given the high economic burden of compliance and relatively small environmental benefit s over the current regulatory baseline. Many of these aforementioned airports have reported that the fluid that is utilized is frequently evaporated before it is able to be captured. Based on this, AAAE proposes that airports with ADF usage that is less th an 100,000 gallons annually (over a five year average) ought to be exempt from the ELG requirements or that the exemption ought to be made on another basis related to measurable criteria such as climate conditions. Response: See the comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1, Excerpt number 6 MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 6 We note that the EPA’s discussion of regulated facilities acknowledges that smaller airports that have minimal pollutant con tributions should not be subject to the burdens of this rulemaking and on that basis excludes airports based on the number of jet departures. See 74 Fed. Reg. at 44689/3 ("it is appropriate to establish this exclusion [of smaller airports] because it avoid s projected significant adverse economic impacts on this segment of the industry without excluding from the national standards a significant pollutant load."). AAAE asks for similar consideration on scoping based on annual usage of ADF. As stated in the pr eamble, "an airport’s overall ADF usage level directly correlates to the amount of wastewater generated and pollutant loadings." 74 Fed. Reg. at 44690. This common sense fact supports an exemption from the rule based on minimal ADF usage. That being said, the EPA “determined that the annual number of aircraft departures at an airport, considered simultaneously with precipitation data, is a reliable predictor of ADF usage." Id. (citing a lack of usage data for every airport). While that correlation may have some basic logic, AAAE urges the EPA to take a closer look at actual usage of ADF to allow for exemptions of certain de minimis user airports. AAAE proposes that a de minimis exemption should be included in the final rule that would exempt from the scope o f the rule those airports that have ADF usage levels below a certain threshold. Specifically, AAAE proposes that airports with ADF usage that is less than 100,000 gallons annually (over a five year average) ought to be exempt from the ELG requirements. R esponse: The final rule does not contain uniform effluent limitations to control spent ADF at existing airports, however EPA agrees that airports in warm climates may have little to no ADF available for collection and has adjusted their NSPS applicability to capture new airports which are anticipated to have substantial ADF usage and discharge. See the preamble for more details on NSPS applicability. MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 8 Requiring de minimis permittees (i.e. those that annually use under 100,000 gallons) to undertake the significant expense of the ELG requirements would not necessarily provide measurable environmental benefits above the current requirements of the MSGP. Th e EPA must balance the relative costs and benefits. Response:441 See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1170, Excerpt number 2 MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 9 Having the exemption from the scope of the r ule dependent on a combination of deicing fluid usage and predictable weather precipitation such as SOFP days would also be appropriate. As discussed in the Economic Analysis, the EPA has airport location and climate data including SOFP days at airports na tionwide. Airports with below a certain number of departures that have an average number of SOFP days below a threshold should be exempt from the rule. Again, these aforementioned, smaller, southern airports already must meet the requirements of their MSGP . Meeting these stringent regulations should be more than environmentally adequate without being economically taxing or unnecessarily laborious to the airport. Response: The final rule does not contain uniform effluent limitations to control discharge o f spent ADF at existing airports, however EPA agrees that airports in warm climates may have little to no ADF available for collection and has adjusted their NSPS applicability to capture new airports which are anticipated to have substantial ADF usage and discharge. See the preamble for more details on NSPS applicability. MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 19 AAAE also notes that the NSPS has the potential for profound impacts on smaller airports in part icular. As written, the proposed regulations would require an airport that utilizes a minimal amount of ADF that constructs a new runway to collect at least 60 percent of available ADF, see proposed 40 C.F.R. § 449.11(a) ? which would basically require ope ration of a centralized deicing pad in accordance with the technical specifications of the rule. Id. at § 449.20(b). Thus, a small southern airport would be treated the same as one of the EPA 's identified "top 14" ADF users, regardless of the obvious diff erences in scope and location of operations. As acknowledged in the preamble's discussion of costs and impacts of BAT (Best Available Technology) options, the 60 percent collection requirement would place a "heavy economic burden" on all but the "top 14" a irports. 74 Fed. Reg. at 44705. And, there is no reason to think that there would be any measurable environmental benefits flowing from the required construction of a centralized deicing pad. 5 Thus, consistent with the preamble, the EPA should ensure that the 60 percent requirement is only imposed on the "top 14" airports. [FOOTNOTE: 5 Indeed, the balance of the relative incremental cost and minor environmental benefits was the very reason that Option 3 was adopted. 74 Fed. Reg. at 44705 (noting that "impo sing the 60 percent requirement on only the top 14 airports under Option 3 is the appropriate cutoff point for determining economic achievability for this industry" and that the smaller "airports, if subjected to a 60 percent capture requirement, would be expected to achieve few additional pounds of pollutant removals relative to Option 3.")] Response: In today’s final rule, EPA has revised its proposed definition of “new source” as it applies to this category. In the proposed rule, “new source” included both new airports and new runways constructed at existing airports. For the final rule EPA decided that a new runway at an existing airport should not be treated as a new source, because the new runway is an integral part of the operation of the entire airport, Therefore, the NSPS based on 60 % collection only applies to new airports. EPA has also revi sed the cut off level of ADF usage for determining applicability of the NSPS for ADF In the final rule, EPA is442 basing NSPS applicability on both a departure threshold and whether the airports are located within specific colder climatic zones as documente d by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). New source airports located within heating degree day zones with more than 3,000 total heating degree days are subject to NSPS collection and discharge requirements, as applicable in the fin al regulation. EPA concludes this reasonably and most simply captures those new airports which will conduct more frequent deicing operations, in a manner similar to a threshold to represent ADF usage and discharge, than would an approach based on ADF usa ge or flight departures, both of which would require more recordkeeping to implement. Finally, the rule does not establish uniform effluent limitations for aircraft deicing fluid discharges at existing airports. MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 17 Page 44690, Section VII. D.3.b.i., Table VII - 2. The proposed guideline fails to regulate significant discharges of pollutants. EPA proposed to regulate those facilities that use in excess of 460,000 gallons of ADF. However, those facilities that use somewhat less (i.e. 450,000 gallons) would be required to collect 20% ADF. As stated previously, the 60% collection should be based on the use of the best available technology (centralized deicing pads) and should not be related to the volume of fluid used or the number of departures. All four options presented in the table will permit millions of gallons of ADF (and an unknown amount of airfield deicing chemicals) to be discharged untreated. If option 3 is used, i t is possible for the airports under the 20% scenario to discharge over 35 million gallons of ADF untreated (this does not include airfield chemicals that will be discharged also); and the airports under the 60% scenario will discharge over 20 million gall ons of ADF untreated (this does not include all airfield chemicals that will be discharged). So, it is possible under, option 3 that over 55 million gallons of ADF (+ an unknown quantity of airfield chemicals) will be discharged untreated to waters of the U.S. each year. The Agency must recognize and address the remaining discharges associated with this industry during non - deicing seasons. See comment number 5 above. There are storm water and/or groundwater discharges that occur from the infrastructure asso ciated with airports. These discharges contain polluting substances (see Exhibit B). Response: EPA has not identified a collection technology capable of collecting all ADF from deicing operations since there are inherently losses associated with the spr aying of ADF during storm conditions. ADF losses may include evaporation, wind spray, vehicle tracking, and shearing during takeoff. See the TDD for more discussion. EPA did not select a uniform effluent limitation for ADF for the reasons stated in the preamble to the final rule. EPA expects that site - by - site effluent limitations, including those to protect water quality (outside the scope of this rulemaking) will be required to protect receiving water that airports discharge to surface waters. Under t he CWA, the public has the opportunity to comment on any draft permit and ultimately to challenge that permit should it find that its limitations do not meet the requirements of the Act. MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 18 Page 44690, Section VII.D.3.b.i., Table VII - 2. The proposed ELG will only require 7 additional airports to install well established collection procedures (60% capture): 94% of the 218 primary airports that are conducting deicing will be allowed to discharge up to 80% of their contaminated storm water untreated.443 Response: See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 excerpt 17. Also, while EPA is concerned about aircraft deicing discharges for the reasons explained in the pre amble, EPA did not establish uniform requirements for aircraft deicing discharges in today’s final rule. Such requirements will continue to be determined on a BPJ basis. EPA expects that site - by - site effluent limitations, including those to protect water quality (outside the scope of this rulemaking) will be required to protect receiving water that airports discharge to surface waters. Under the CWA, the public has the opportunity to comment on any draft permit and ultimately to challenge that permit sh ould it find that its limitations do not meet the requirements of the Act. MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 22 EPA Must Establish Scope Parameters Related to Deicing Operations As proposed, the scope of the rule is based on airports that have more than 1,000 annual scheduled commercial jet aircraft departures, regardless of weather or time of year. EPA’s collection and treatment requirements kick in for those airports with 10,000 or more annual departures , regardless of how many of those might actually need to be deiced prior to departure. EPA has specifically requested comments on alternative threshold criteria for establishing the scope of the rule. As proposed, the scope is defined without regard to the frequency and magnitude of aircraft deicing activities and is inappropriate for small and low deicing activity airports. ACI - NA suggests that EPA scope those airports that should become subject to deicing ELGs with some relationship to the significant occ urrence of actual deicing operations, and to treat those with de minimis deicing discharges as “out - of - scope” and irrelevant to future ELGs.26 [Footnote 26: ACI - NA notes that EPA requests comment on, but in no other way discusses military airports or milit ary use of “in - scope” airports. ACI - NA is willing to help connect EPA staff with ACI - NA members that have significant military presence at their airports, but the implications of COD additions to regulated airport stormwater must be accounted for and addre ssed in any final rule.] Response: EPA is not promulgating uniform effluent limitations for spent ADF as part of the BAT requirements. Additionally the NSPS collection requirement is designed to only capture new airports that would be substantial users and dischargers of ADF. Additionally, military aircraft are not in the scope of today's rule and not subject to the requirements. Requirements associated with such discharges will be established based on BPJ under section 402(a)(1) of the CWA . MIN_USE_ CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 23 EPA Must Establish Thresholds That Exempt Airports Using Minimal ADF. EPA does not establish a de minimis threshold based on ADF usage, but rather eliminates airports from the r ule’s scope based on departures. For several reasons, it is critical that EPA establish a de minimus threshold to eliminate those airports using minimal ADF: 1 There is no technology that is available for collecting a meaningful fraction of ADF from airpo rts that use little of it. 2 Only a trivial fraction of the ADF applied at airports that use small quantities will be discharged to surface waters. 3 It is very cost - ineffective to attempt to collect and treat ADF at airports that use little of it. The pou nds of discharge abated are very low (usage is low, most usage is for defrosting, little of that reaches surface waters, hence baseline load is low, and444 control measures can do little to reduce this baseline load). The costs are relatively high

– investing in control equipment across an entire airport that must be at - the - ready at all times in order to control minimal discharges that occur only, at most, a couple times a year

– is necessarily inefficient. 4 Congress did not intend for EPA to craft ELG standa rds for all dischargers, particularly those that represent trivial pollutant sources. As proposed, the rule includes airports that use environmentally insignificant volumes of ADF. An example is Ontario International Airport in California where EPA estimat es an average annual ADF usage of 34 gallons. Of the 100 airports in the scope of the Proposed Rule that are required to collect 20 percent of available applied ADF, roughly 27 are estimated by EPA to have less than 1,000 gallons of ADF used annually. Keep ing de minimis airports within the scope of the rule also could create the ridiculous scenario in which an airport that cannot achieve 20 percent collection due to limited defrosting operations could become subject to the 60 percent standard if it undertak es major construction or adds a runway (becoming subject to NSPS). No benefit is derived by including such airports into any ELG, let alone subjecting them to the most stringent standards. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1188, Excerpt numbe r 2, response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1203.1, Excerpt Number: 1.and response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1, Excerpt number 19. MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 25 Finally, EPA should establish a de minimis no - risk level based on ADF usage below which BAT standards would not be required. The Agency previously made such a “risk” determination with regards to an ADF usage rate of 100,000 gallons/year28 [Footnote 28: Importantly, the MSGP 100,000 gallon thresho ld is based on ADF “as purchased” before dilution (or “neat”). See section II.J.1 for ACI - NA’s comments on EPA’s definition of “normalized ADF.”]in the Multi - Sector General Permit(MSGP).29 [Footnote 29: See EPA MSPG Part 8.S.6 (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pub s/msgp2008_finalpermit.pdf). When EPA originally established monitoring requirements for the Air Transportation Sector (Sector S), it deviated from the monitoring methodology used in other sectors because it deemed airports one of three “high priority” sec tors from which it believed colleting additional monitoring data was appropriate. See 60 Fed. Reg. at 51,078 (Sept. 29, 1995). EPA used 100,000 gallons of ADF (neat) as its monitoring threshold to ensure it obtained data from airports that comprised a majo rity of ADF users. Id. at 51,002. EPA has never provided an analysis of Sector S sampling data since 1995 that demonstrates that airports using more than 100,000 gallons of ADF present an environmental threat after implementing BMP controls. Hence, such a threshold arguably should be the lowest threshold for “in - scope” airports subject to any Deicing ELG. After all, if EPA cannot demonstrate a threat based on its regulatory mechanism designed specifically to assess whether a threat exists at airports using more than 100,000 gallons of ADF, pursuing BAT standards for much smaller ADF users appears arbitrary.] This threshold has been validated by its retention through several cycles of the MSGP, and could have served as a starting point for establishing de min imis criteria for the Proposed Rule. EPA should explain why it would not be appropriate as the basis for a de minimis cutoff for the ELG. Response: The Clean Water Act sets forth two mechanisms for controlling the discharge of pollutants

– technology based and water quality - based controls. First, EPA establishes technology based ELGs and standards under sections 301(b)(1)(A), 30(b)(2)A) and 301(b)(1) (E) that reflect various levels (BPT,BCT/BAT and BADCT) of technology - based controls to reduce pollutant discharges, irrespective of the impact to the receiving stream. See e.g., Weyerhaeuser v. Costle , 590 F.2d 1011, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Permit autho rities take into account the receiving stream when determining that technology - based controls are insufficient to meet applicable state water quality standards. See CWA section 301(b)(1)(C).445 Second, EPA revised the regulation options for the final rule, including the lowest ADF threshold at which it evaluated effluent limitations based on ADF collection and controlled discharge. The preamble to the final rule explains EPA’s rationale for the evaluated lower threshold. Third, the final rule does not con tain uniform effluent limitations based on collection and treatment of spent ADF at existing airports. For new sources, however, EPA agrees that airports in warm climates may have little to no ADF available for collection and has adjusted the NSPS applica bility to capture new airports, which are anticipated to have substantial ADF usage and discharge. See the preamble for more details on NSPS applicability. MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 31 EPA Must E stablish a De Minimis Threshold That Is More Consistent, Easy to Understand, Directly Related to Significant Aircraft Deicing Activities, and Cost - Effective Compared to the Proposed Departures - Based Approach. The estimated cost per pound of COD removed by ADF controls in the Proposed Rule is disproportionately high at all airports in geographic regions with 3 or fewer SOFP days. These costs are not justified by the incremental benefit from removals. These airports represent just 0.1% of the estimated total weighted COD removed by the ADF collection requirements in the proposed rule. EPA may consider eliminating airports in regions with 3 or fewer SOFP days from the scope of the Proposed Rule. EPA’s analysis provides a basis for setting a meaningful threshold on low ADF use airports. Specifically, EPA stated, “Airports with less than 10,000 total annual departures have been excluded from ADF collection and treatment requirements based on possible economic achievability concerns.”35 EPA goes on to conclude that “[m]oreover, airports with less than 10,000 annual departures are smaller airports and may have greater difficulty raising funds to meet these ADF requirements.”36 As noted above, some excluded airports have significant volumes of estimated ADF usage. The usage estimates for the excluded airports, and the examination of cost per pound of COD removed are consistent with a threshold of approximately 60,000 gallons per year of ADF usage as the lower bound on practical cost - effective control under the Proposed Rule. With one exception (Deadhorse, AK37),[Footnote 37: EPA estimated SOFP days from other airports in Alaska, estimated ADF usage from that estimated SOFP and a very questionable regression analysis (Figure 10 - 2 in TDD), and assumed 100 percent collecti on of applied ADF).] Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1170, Excerpt number 2 MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 95 EPA must assume that such airports would have to incur the costs associate d meeting BAT for 20 percent collection and treatment

– capital and annual costs for GRVs and an AFBR. The actual costs to be incurred by infrequent ADF users are significantly higher than EPA estimates. EPA could fix this issue by modifying its scope cons iderations, including exempting any airport that uses less than the MSGP benchmark cutoff of 100,000 gallons of ADF. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1170, Excerpt number 2446 MIN_USE_CUTOFF - Minimum usage cut - off Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1245 - 15 Minimum deicing, totals. The ELG ADF collection requirement should contain a minimum deicing volume that would exempt airports with minimal deicing from complying with the collection requirements. Airports that exceed the, de partures threshold such that they are subject to the deicing collecti6n requirements but - that reside in a climate where deicing rarely occurs could be required to maintain GRV or equivalent technology deicing collection regardless of the potential volume. The EPA should provide a minimum ADF deicing threshold for inclusion into the 20% collection requirement threshold. Requiring airports with rare, low - volume deicing to invest in and operate GRVs or equivalent technology is overly burdensome. Response: Se e response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1188, Excerpt number 2, and response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1203.1, Excerpt Number: 1.

MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1170 - 1 (CHA Airport) The proposed rule is based on numbers of departures and not climate or amount of deicing fluid used. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). The final rule NSPS does take climate into account by basing applicability in part on whether the airport is located within specific colder climatic zones. It is designed to exclude facilities that primarily perform defrost deicing, making ADF collection infeasible. See DCN AD01267. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208 - 12 (PHL Airport) If the "ban" on urea becomes effective, will airports with a stockpile of urea - based product be allowed to use up this material before being required to switch to alternative products? Response: The urea deicer provisions in the final rule are effective 30 days after promulgation of the final rule. However, the ELG provisions do not affect a partic ular permittee until they are incorporated into the permit. Many airports have permits which do not expire for a few years, so those airports will likely have more time to comply. Note also that following promulgation of the rule, there is a period of tim e in which NPDES - authorized States will need to incorporate the new rule provisions into their own State programs. Also, the final rule includes a compliance alternative that allows urea usage as long as the airport meets447 the ammonia discharge limitation. In the event that today’s rule is incorporated into an airport's discharge permit and the airport elects to comply through product substitution, it will not be able to apply stockpiled urea. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Commen t Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 37 (EQ Resource Recovery) TDD Page 4 - 3, Table 4 - 1. There were some inconsistencies noted in the descriptions applied to airports under the column titled "Criteria for Site Visit", including: • Pittsburgh Internation al: 1) the use of the LIF/RO is a subset of the glycol recovery process, not a stand alone treatment, and 2) the airport is also an "indirect discharger" through the glycol recovery process. • Salt Lake City International, should reference "direct and indi rect discharger" categories. Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this additional information and has noted these changes to Table 3 - 1 of the final rule TDD. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 40 NOTE: TDD Page 8 - 3, contains a section entitled "Grassed Swales". Although this is a means of conveyance, the emphasis appears to be on treatment, and as such, should possibly be discussed under section 8.2 of the TDD, "Tre atment and Recycling". Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and Grassed swales have been removed from this section of the TDD as they are not typically associated with treatment. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 47 NOTE: last full paragraph on TDD page 8 - 9, references a "recycling" pump. The correct term may be "re circulating" pump. Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and TDD text has been revised accordingly. MISC - Miscella neous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 51 Similarly, under TDD section 9.1.3, EQRR presented previously that the FAA does not allow deice pads to be graded any differently than all aircraft movement surfaces. As such, the "specially graded" claim is inaccurate.448 Response: The text in the Propose d Rule TDD, Section 9.1.3 indicates that deicing pads are designed for deicing stormwater collection. The use of the term "specially graded" was intended to indicate that the pad flow will lead to stormwater storage, not that the angle of grading for a de icing pad is different than other aircraft movement surfaces. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 58 In support of data reported under TDD section 10.4.4 (page 10 - 19) our experience has shown that the ratio of COD/BOD5 runs from 1.5 to 1.7. Response: EPA thanks you for your comment. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 74 The Figure 11 - 2 on TDD page 11 - 31 would be more accurate o f a model if: 1) The three collection methods were referenced in a single block 2) The flows were segregated by concentration ranges, linked to that AFB, UF/RO, Aerated Ponds, and Anaerobic POTW followed the same path. From here, the UF/RO concentrate woul d be directed to the MVR (recycle) path and permeate to a POTW (indirect) discharge path. The rest (AFB, Aerated Pond, etc.) would go to a direct discharge block. The addition of aerobic treatment could be added... 3) The On - site MVR (correct the reference from MV"E") and Off - site recovery (with the addition of off - site disposal other than POTW.) would be its own path, with MVR/ Distillation effluents to indirect discharge and "product" This would clarify which relay on direct and indirect discharges, and w hich technologies have similar feed (concentration) limitations. Response: EPA thanks you for your comments, this diagram has been removed from the final TDD. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 121 4.1 - 76 When the statement is made (as on TDD page 11 - 38, section 11.3.4 and throughout the TDD and Federal Register publication) that a deice pad is predicted to last 20 - years, does this refer to the actual concrete ramp surface or the support components? If it i s the former, would these surface areas also require replacement whether it was employed as a deice area for "GRV" recovery or "plug and pump"? Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING) (The final rule does not set uniform require ments for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). For purposes of costing the regulatory options for the final rule, EPA estimated typical life spans for the various technologies evaluated including CDPs, GCVs, and components of a plug and p ump system. For the CDP technology, EPA assumed that the designed pad surface would have a 20 year life - span. The airport surface lifespan does not apply to the GCV and plug and pump system cost analysis and the life span estimates for those technologies that were associated with the equipment. Airport surfaces are subject to repair and replacement as a matter of course, whether or not deicing stormwater collection occurs.449 EPA notes that the barrier to entry analysis for NSPS reflects installation costs only and as such, this comment is not applicable to that analysis. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 148 (ATA) EPA’s Analytical Methodology Does Not Accommodate Variability EPA acknowl edges, even highlights, the extreme variability of the industry, but then ignores it by adopting a methodology which relies on limited data to derive linear metrics. This largely is a result of Agency’s refusal, even as it acknowledges the breadth and dept h of complexity inherent in the activity it is seeking to regulate, to meet the challenges presented by adopting analytical methodologies that adequately capture and reflect those complexities. This problem is compounded by EPA’s statistical modeling, part icularly with respect to Tier Two airports and as it relates to EPA’s cost estimates for those airports. Many Tier Two airports upon which EPA bases its cost estimates do not exist in the real world, but rather are “modeled” airports represented in EPA’s c ost models by real world airports. Many of these airports are assumed to be “zero cost” airports because their real world alter egos have been determined to be zero cost airports. EPA projects that 96 airports will be Tier Two airports;389 of these, only 7 5 actually exist in the real world. The other 21 airports are not real airports, but are represented by real world airports included in the models, but assigned a statistical weight >1.0; these airports not only represent themselves, but other (or a portio n of other) airports. Specifically, of the 75 real world Tier Two airports in the model: 58 have a statistical weight = 1.0 (these airports represent only themselves); and 17 have statistical weights >1.0 (they represent not only themselves, but 21 additio nal airports). For example, GRR has a weight of 1.586, BHM 2.841, and TUS 3.000. So GRR represents not only itself but 0.586 of an airport assumed to be identical to it, while TUS represents not only itself but two other airports assumed to be identical to it . Fully 22% of the Tier Two airports in EPA’s model (21 of the 96) are not real airports, but modeled airports. Only four of the 17 real world airports with statistical weights >1.0 are assumed to incur costs because their real world alter egos are ass umed to incur costs. In contrast, the remaining 13 of the real world airports with statistical weights >1.0 are assumed to have “zero costs” because their real world alter egos are assumed to have zero costs. In sum, there are four real world airports that have been determined to incur costs (BHM, ROA, FWA and XNA) that represent 8.881 total airports, representing five purely hypothetical “modeled” airports; while there are 13 real world airports that have been determined to incur no costs representing 16 p urely hypothetical “modeled” airports. It is not clear from the analyses provided by EPA that a real world airport can appropriately be used to represent the costs that would be expected to be incurred by “modeled” (i.e., purely hypothetical) airports. Thi s is because the compliance status of a particular airport (whether it already achieves the proposed standards) is based on factors that do not appear to be factors considered in assigning statistical weights to airports. It appears that statistical weight ing is based on the number of departures and SOFP days, not factors that determine an airport’s current ability to meet proposed standards.390 In addition, there appears to be no basis for concluding that the amount of the costs incurred by “modeled” airpo rts can be based on their real world alter egos. In short, it appears that of the 50 Tier Two airports EPA says will be “zero cost” under the Proposed Rule, 16

– fully 32%

– are purely hypothetical “modeled” airports and there is no basis for assuming thes e airports are “zero cost.” Response: The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports. Thus, there are no “Tier 2” requirements in the final rule for existing sources; nor are there such requirements for new sources. Nevertheless, in response, EPA disagrees with the commenter and we continue to conclude that the data450 in our technical analyses are reliable, adequate, and representative of the industry. Further, the estimates derived from these data are statistically unbiased. EPA's survey designs were developed using standard statistical techniques. Statistical sampling is used in numerous industries and by virtually all government agencies collecting data from populations, including tho se that are used to access the state of the economy (e.g. the Current Population Survey). It is unusual to find studies in which the entire population is included, because of the costs and burden to the respondent and the survey organization. We also not e that the Office of Management and Budget approved each of EPA's survey designs before EPA collected any data. For clarity, the standard definition of a statistical sample is a process of random selection from a list of units in which all units have a kn own, non - zero chance for inclusion in the sample. It is not necessary that every unit have the same chance for selection or that the sample size be fixed. It is only necessary that all the units on the frame have a known, non - zero chance of selection. I n the inference process, the selection probability is used to properly weight each sampled unit when estimating statistics about the sampling frame or the population the frame is meant to represent. A simple common sense example applies to a blood test. A small quantity is drawn and analyzed and inferences made to the entire population. Another example of accepted statistical sampling involves the quality assurance process. It is implausible to select the entire sample when the sampling and measuring p rocess involves destructive testing. A small sample, drawn using probability methods, is used to make inferences about a larger, unobserved population. Probability samples, which were used for the airport and airline surveys, allow inferences to be made to the sampling frame from which the sample was drawn. Numerous textbooks (e.g. [1]) and technical journals describe a variety of ways of drawing valid probability samples and making inferences to the sampling frame from which the sample was selected. EP A determined the size (i.e., number of facilities) in the probability samples by applying standard statistical equations (see [1]). These samples provide an adequate database that can be used to estimate population characteristics. [1] Cochran, William G ., Sampling Techniques , John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1963. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 152 The Proposed Rule Relies on Stale Information. EPA based the Proposed Rule on data collected between 1992 and 2006. The information relied upon

– some of which is up to 16 years old

– is not an accurate representation of the current state of the industry. EPA’s reliance upon such stale data to support the development of the Proposed Rule is unlawful, both as an arbitrary and capricious act under the APA and as a direct contravention of the requirements of the CWA. Section 304(m)(1) of the CWA requires EPA to promulgate an ELG no later than three years after EPA identifies the source categ ory in a plan published in the Federal Register. In September of 2004, EPA published an EGP that identified the Airport Deicing source category.400 Yet a full five years passed before the agency issued the proposed Airport Deicing ELG.401 Section 304(m) re flects Congressional intent that EPA should act with due speed to promulgate an ELG. Compliance with § 304(m) is protective of the environment, as it compels timely development and implementation of pollution control measures after EPA identifies an indust ry it believes is subject to rulemaking. The timing provision is also protective of the subject industry. Congress understood that EPA would require time to gather information and develop the ELG. The statutory three year period ensures both that the Agenc y regulates with dispatch and that the information used as a basis for its regulation is presumptively current and relevant. Courts have recognized the protective nature of the timing provisions of Section 304(m). For example, they have held that EPA must utilize current cost451 figures and update their regulations on the basis of the best information available. CPC International Inc v. Train, 515 F.2d 1032, 1051 (8th Cir. 1975); Grain Processing Corp. v. Train, 407 F. Supp. 96, 106 (S. D. Iowa 1976). The use of stale information is especially problematic given the rapid changes occurring in the aviation industry. Significant changes in the industry affect many factors that directly relate to assumptions underlying EPA’s proposed rule. For example, the Proposed Rule fails to account for the rapid evolution of deicing technology, practices, and application techniques, changes to the level of activity in the industry, and changes to the fleet mix. Moreover, due to its use of out - dated cost information, the ELG fai ls to reflect the current economic realities of the industry and the impact of capture and treatment costs. EPA must provide a “reasonable basis” for its belief that a new technology will be available and economically achievable. Hooker Chemicals & Plastic s Corp. v. Train, 537 F.2d 620, 634 - 35 (2d Cir. 1976). Yet it is inherently unreasonable for the Agency to base its determination that a technology is “economically achievable” on cost information that no longer reflects the state of the industry. Respon se: The data that support the final rule are appropriate and provide a robust record for this rulemaking. These data reasonably represent the current practices in the aviation industry. Specifically, the sources of the vast majority of information in th e record are the airport and airline questionnaires. These responses reflect the base years of 2004 to 2006, contrary to the commenter’s statement that the data EPA relied upon are much older. EPA requested this information from the airlines and the airp orts because it was not publicly available. As the rulemaking progressed, EPA judged that there was no need to seek any updated information through a supplementary survey to cover more recent years, in light of the additional burden this would have placed on the industry. (EPA notes that some facilities objected to the burden and requirements of the surveys that they did receive for the years 2004 - 06). In addition, EPA must judge when to end the basic information collection phase of a rulemaking in order to allow the rulemaking to proceed, rather than conducting multiple iterations of information collection on the industry. Here, EPA appropriately used the most recent and best data available to it. It is well established that EPA may regulate based on imperfect information as long as the Agency articulates a reasoned basis for its analysis. As one court held in reviewing EPA's Phase II rules under CWA section 402(p)(6), "EPA is not required to conduct the ‘perfect study.’” (citation omitted). We de fer to an agency decision not to invest the resources necessary to conduct the perfect study, and we defer to a decision to use available data unless there is no rational relationship between the means EPA uses to account for any imperfections in its data and the situation to which those means are applied. Id . Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA , 115 F.3d 979, 1004 (D.C. Cir. 1997). The record indicates a reasoned basis for EPA's decision that regulating small construction was necessary 'to protect water quali ty' as required by § 402(p)(6)." Env’l Defense Center, Inc. v. EPA, 344 F.3d 832, 872 (9th Cir. 2003). See also T exas Oil & Gas Ass'n v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 935 (5th Cir.1998). EPA notes that its approach in this rulemaking is consistent with past ELGs . In general, EPA has historically considered industry provided data in the questionnaires to be the best data available, even where the data represent prior years. Anyone who believed that the survey or national estimates were not representative could have voluntarily submitted additional data. In fact, EPA actively encouraged airports and airlines to provide additional data on numerous occasions. For example, EPA published two Federal register notices specifically requesting comment on the surveys a nd the proposed statistical methodology. Prior to receiving OMB approval for the surveys, EPA responded all comments received. This commenter provided no specific examples of outdated information, but generally speaks of outdated cost information becaus e of the rapid evolution in deicing technology, practices, and applications, etc. EPA notes that, to the extent the industry has incorporated additional deicing controls since this data collection that reduce deicing - related discharges, EPA has likely ove r - costed the regulatory options under452 consideration. Similarly, the costs of “new” technologies often decrease as they become more widely used. EPA also notes that it used the ENR Construction Cost index to adjust construction and treatment cost informat ion to present value. As such, the information in the record is a reasonable basis for evaluating costs and impacts. EPA reviewed economic trends in the airline industry in support of the final rule. The final rule Economic Analysis summarizes these t rends, noting the highly cyclical nature of airline profitability as well as system - wide disruptions (see section 2.4). The EA also notes that "... 2006 represented the first profitable year for the airline industry since 2000 ." (Section 2.7.) EPA conclu ded that all of the regulatory options it considered for the final rule are economically achievable for the industry. In addition, EPA disagrees with the commenter's interpretation of Section 304(m) regarding the information used to support an effluent gui deline. Section 304(m) concerns the schedule for promulgating effluent guidelines and does not address data needs or age of the information used to support the guidelines. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 7 (AK DEC) Include a specific prohibition of discharge of ADF to the land in the ELG. Response: The Clean Water Act regulates discharges to w aters of the United States. Therefore, EPA did not include such a prohibition i n developing the final rule. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 17 (PA NY/NJ) There are several problems with the way the data are presented. First, the information presented is confusing. The TDD text (p. 4 - 12) refers to “commercial departures” but Table 4 - 4 refers to “total airport departures,” and neither term is defined. Table 4 - 4 and the related TDD text do not indicate a source for the information19 or the period or dates used. TDD p. 10 - 8 refers to the “total amount of airport operations” with no period or dates given. TDD p. 10 - 11 refers to the average number of annual departures at each airport during 2004 - 2006. In a number of places (e.g., p. 2 - 2), the TDD refers to “jet departures .” The ERG memorandum regarding land availability for deicing pads refers to “commercial aircraft departures during 04 - 05 deicing season.”20 Given the wide variety of terms used, it is not clear (1) whether the data are annual or for a deicing season, (2) whether the data cover one year/season or are an average of the numbers for multiple years/seasons, and (3) what types of aircraft operations are included in the data (arrivals and/or departures; air carrier scheduled, air carrier charter, commuter, and ca rgo operations, etc.). Second, it appears that the information is not provided in the record for us to review. In Chapter 11, the TDD notes that EPA collected information on aircraft departures from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics T - 100 Segment Dat abase (p. 11 - 9). Port Authority staff has searched the official docket and the users’ guide to the docket, and cannot find the referenced data.21 Therefore, we cannot review the record to confirm or comment on the numbers used in Table 4 - 4 and elsewhere in the TDD and Proposed Rule. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics is a highly reputable source and the T - 100 database is a thorough accounting of airline statistics, but we cannot determine what parts of the database the EPA used or how the EPA used the numbers available. Third, the data reported by the EPA do not match the Port Authority’s own aircraft operations data, and thus may be inaccurate. Please note that it is difficult to compare our data to the EPA numbers, for the reasons noted above. Using t he various453 statements and references from the TDD, we assumed that the EPA data represented the number of annual aircraft departures for scheduled and charter passenger, commuter, and cargo flights, averaged for the three calendar years 2004, 2005, and 200 6. Using this approach and the Port Authority’s own data, the numbers for our three major airports are as follows: [See table comparing EPA and Port Authority no. of airport departures.] The comparison illustrates potentially significant under - reporting di fferences of up to 9 percent. Although these differences may seem to be minor, they are important because of the way EPA uses the data. For example, EPA multiplies the number of departures by an estimated “pad area per departure” factor to determine the ar ea required for centralized deicing pads. A 9 - percent difference in the pad area required (assuming for the moment that the EPA’s approach to the land availability analysis is valid, which we do not22) equates to a 130,000 - plus - square - foot difference at JF K (almost three acres). In addition, the EPA used the same approach to develop activity data for the “model airports” used in its deicing pad land availability analysis.23 The activity data for the model airports were used to develop the “pad area per depa rture” factor used to determine the area required for centralized deicing pads for JFK and LGA. If the activity data EPA used for the model airports are inaccurate, the area per departure factor also would be inaccurate, leading to additional inaccuracies in the estimates of land area required for deicing pads at JFK and LGA. EPA uses the activity data to erroneously conclude that JFK and LGA have adequate land available for centralized deicing pads. EPA also uses the activity data as part of the cost estim ates for centralized deicing pad systems, and thus to support its incorrect conclusion that centralized pads are economically feasible. Therefore, the Port Authority is concerned about potential inaccuracies in the data, and maintains that the information cannot be used as it was in a rule - making process. We request that, at a minimum, the EPA state clearly and consistently (1) what aircraft activity are represented by the data, (2) the period the data represent (deicing season or annual), (3) what timefram e is covered by the data (one year or an average of several years), and (4) if and how the BTS data were modified to develop the data presented. Also, the BTS data used should be easily accessible in the public record, so that we can identify a clear link between the T - 100 database and the numbers used in the TDD and Proposed Rule. All of this assumes that EPA can justify using the corrected data to reach the conclusions that are analyzed above, which the Port Authority does not believe that EPA can do. The refore, EPA must acknowledge that its data and analyses are incorrect. EPA should consider collecting better data, performing better analyses, and possibly re - proposing the rule. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The fin al rule does not establish uniform ADF collection or treatment requirements for existing airports). In developing regulatory options for the final rule, EPA analyzed departure information and is therefore providing the explanations below. EPA disagrees t hat it has not detailed how it used BTS data. EPA's initial analysis of the top 50 airports with deicing for the permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) review is documented in the Proposal TDD Section 4. This analysis used 2004/2005 wint er season airport departure data from the BTS - T100 database as documented in the proposal record in the November 8, 2006 memorandum, Airport Deicing Operations SWPPP and Permit Review (DCN AD00859). EPA also used airport departure data from the BTS - T100 d atabase for the ADF usage analysis, as described in the Proposal TDD Section 10. This analysis used an average of the 2002/2003, 2003/2004, and 2004/2005 winter season departure value by airport, along with airport Snow and Freezing Precipitation (SOFP) d ata, as documented in DCN AD00856. EPA's use of the term "commercial departures" refers to departures from an airport excluding general aviation flights. EPA's use of the term "jet departures" referred to departures from an airport excluding propeller p lanes. The final rule uses the term "annual non - propeller aircraft departures." See §449.2.454 The commenter states that EPA did not use accurate aircraft operation s information to estimate the area required for deicing pads. For the reasons explained in section V.B.3 of the preamble, EPA did not cost CDP technology for existing airports in the final rule. Therefore, this comment is not applicable. For more information, see comment code C_CDP_BASIS, EPA comment response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Com ment Excerpt 9. The Agency used Bureau of Transportation Statistics’ T - 100 Data Bank Domestic & International Segment Data. The segment data accounts for all flights between any two airports regardless of whether it is one segment of a longer route. Although these databases include both scheduled departures and departures performed, the Agency stri ctly used departures performed to characterize airport activity. The T - 100 data were also supplemented with Form 298C data to capture departures by small airlines; these combined data sets should capture all commercial departures except for air taxis. Th e Agency assumed that these data are reliable because both domestic and foreign air carriers are required to report operations data to the Department of Transportation under 14 CFR 241 as a condition of maintaining their certification. The departure data u sed in the TDD calculated departures for one year periods running from July 1 of one year through June 30 of the following year to match annual departures to the same deicing season. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: E PA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 103 Winter Storm Operations Procedures The problems related to aircraft delay are compounded during winter operations. However, our airports have special procedures in place to operate the airfield as efficiently as possible du ring winter storm conditions. In addition to reducing aircraft delay, these procedures help to reduce the use of aircraft deicing fluid, by preventing the need for secondary deicing. The following is a description of winter storm operations procedures at J FK. 235 After the accident involving USAir Flight 405 at LGA in March 1992,236 the FAA Administrator established new operating rules during winter storm conditions. The FAA, airport operators, and airlines at 26 airports (including JFK) were required to de velop and institute deicing plans. As part of its plan, JFK initially established a Departure Allocation Center and a slot allocation system to assign aircraft departure times within the hourly limits set by the ATCT. This system was enhanced in 2002 with the introduction of IROPSnet, a computer - based coordination and communication tool. IROPSnet is currently used during winter storm operations at JFK. The IROPSnet program allows the following information to be shared by the airlines, terminal operators, Po rt Authority staff, and FAA ATCT: • Airfield conditions: airport/runway closures and openings, predicted times to open or close runways, available/plowed runway length, surface conditions; • Airfield information: departure and arrival flow rates, expected taxi clearance times, actual taxi times, expected takeoff clearance times, gate availability for arrivals, location of deicing operations on field; • Airline cancellations and delays: listing of airline cancellations; • Customer service information: termin al needs including cots, blankets, medical, and foods, availability of ground transportation and hotel rooms. The schedule for each airline is programmed into IROPSnet, based on data from the Official Airline Guide (“OAG”). IROPSnet updates this informatio n automatically. An independent radar network provides information on actual aircraft arrival and departure times. When the operational demand exceeds the effective airport capacity, the departure slot allocation program goes into effect. The ATCT establis hes the hourly departure limit, and JetBlue is currently in charge of allocating the slots at JFK, with agreement by the entire airport airline community. The slots are allocated in part depending on takeoff times requested by the airlines; the airlines in corporate estimated times for deicing and anti - icing into their requests. As each aircraft is assigned a departure slot, each terminal manager receives the assigned departure slot time for aircraft departing from their particular terminal. As additional ai rcraft are assigned departure slots or existing slot times are altered, IROPSnet updates the information and disseminates it to each user. The use of IROPSnet provides the JFK community (the Port455 Authority, the airlines, and the FAA) the ability to better manage airport operations and coordinate surface movement and departure flow. IROPSnet has been shown to prevent aircraft diversions, minimize the need for secondary deicing, and maximize the use of the available departure slots. Basically, the winter oper ations procedures in effect at JFK help to maximize the use of the reduced airfield capacity available during a winter storm, thus reducing aircraft delays and associated costs to the regional and national aviation system. Timely and efficient aircraft dei cing conducted by airlines or their service providers at or near the terminal gate is critical to the success of winter operations. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform ADF collecti on or treatment requirements for existing airports). MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 126 The Port Authority also strongly suggests that EPA convene an industry/regulatory workgroup, and i nclude FAA, to consider the comments submitted, and more importantly, develop feasible alternatives to minimize deicing product loading in storm water. The workgroup could build on the excellent information developed in the recent Airport Cooperative Resea rch Program report on this topic. The Port Authority would welcome the opportunity to participate in such a workgroup. Response: Today's final rule reflects the input of the industry, the permit authorities, and FAA throughout development of the rule. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1233.1 - 6 (Continental Airlines) (2) Newark no longer has an infrared deicing facility. During EPA’s site visit to Newark, Continental informed EPA that the infrared deicing facility was to be disassembled because a large portion of Continental’s aircraft would no longer fit inside the de icing facility. Continental has been modifying its aircraft wings with winglets to improve the aircraft fuel efficiency (up to 5% improvement), so the aircraft wingspan exceeded the width of the deicing facility and could not pass through. Additionally, th e facility was at the opposite end of the runway and with the cost of jet fuel and the decreased holdover time for the fluids, it was no longer cost effective. Response: EPA thanks the commenter for the update. The final rule preamble does not referenc e the former infrared deicing facility at Newark Liberty Airport and the support documents have been revised accordingly. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - excerpts 11 and 12 Page 44689, Se ction VII.C.2. The summary of pollutants of concern is flawed as it does not include the entire scope of deicing chemical usage and associated discharges.456 Page 44689, Section VII.D. This Section is misleading and does not appear to be based on facts. EPA states that “At some airports, the contaminated storm water is discharged untreated directly to waters of United States. At other airports, the wastewater is treated before discharge, sent to a POTW or off - site waste contractor, and/or discharged to groun dwater.” There is not any airport in the country that collects and treats all of its ADF contaminated wastewater. The above statement should be revised to state that at some airports a portion of ADF contaminated wastewater is collected and treated prior t o discharge but the majority of ADF wastewater is discharged untreated. Under the proposed regulation, there will remain significant untreated discharges of ADF. Response: The summary sections discussing pollutants of concern, sections IV.E. and V.B. in the preamble of the final, refer to the TDD for further discussion. Section 6 of the final rule TDD provides a full discussion of how EPA selected pollutants of concern (POC). Because this comment does not specifically address EPA’s POC methodology, EPA cannot respond more specifically. Regarding section VII.D in the proposed rule preamble, EPA agrees and has revised its discussion in the final rule preamble and TDD accordingly. See Section IV.C. of the final preamble. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 19 Page 44692, Section VII. E. Under the proposed ELG, numerous airports will be authorized to collect less ADF than they are currently collecting. An airport that now collects around 60% ( of actual ADF used not ADF ‘available’) but does not use 460,000 gallons, under the proposed ELG, could stop collecting at the pads and only use GRVs to collect 20% of the ADF. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The fina l rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). Existing requirements in the permit are subject to the NPDES anti - backsliding provisions at 40 CFR 122.44(l). MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwi se covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 25 Page 44697, Section VII. J. 2.b. EPA states that if a particular airport would be subject to the 20% requirement and currently collects a greater amount that no load removal was estimated for that airport. Was a load addition included for these airports, which may be numerous if less than 14 airports will be required to collect at the 60% level? Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). As explained above, the final rule does not include a 20% collection requirement. However, with respect to the various regulatory options evaluated for the final rule, EPA did not es timate loadings reductions if it had concluded that an airport would meet the required collection level under its existing approach. See457 the preamble and the TDD for a discussion of EPA's loadings methodology. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwi se covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 30 Page 44707, Section VIII. G. EPA makes no mention of what will happen with airports that are currently collecting at a level above 20% that are only required to collect at 20% once the ELG is promulgated. The additional ADF that can now be discharged will lessen the amount removed by the proposed rule. Response: See response to (code MISC) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 Excerpt Number: 19 (above) MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 36 Page 44718, §449.20 (b) (2) (C). A written deicing operations plan needs to be in place at any airport with a valve system at its deicing pads. The plan should describe the procedure for opening and closing valves and who specifically is responsible for th is operation as it is normally some entity other than the deicing company or the airline being deiced. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment fo r existing airports). The final rule does not require existing airports to collect ADF). For NSPS, the final rule identifies operational requirements associated with various technologies required to demonstrate compliance. However, it leaves flexibili ty to the airport (with the permitting authority's approval) to determine the method for making that demonstration. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 37 Page 44718, §449.20 (b) (2) (G). Th e collection system must be sized to transport and store all runoff from the deicing pad during deicing activities. During a storm event, a large volume of water will need to be collected and stored until it can be treated or disposed off - site. A requireme nt needs to be included to ensure that each airport has sufficient storage capacity to contain all runoff from deicing pads during deicing operations. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). For NSPS, EPA does not have a specific storage requirement as the need for storage will vary depending on the airport’s specific collection/treatment strategy. EPA has however, included costs to provide the necessary storage to equalize flows prior to treatment in the AFB system. See (MISC) Comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 excerpt number : 75.458 MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 38 Page 3 - 2, Table 3 - 3. The amount of glycol used on aircraft is not an appropriate justification to allow for less collection than has been shown to be reasonably achieved and cost - effective. If 60% collection has been shown to be readily a chievable by the industry, then all facilities under the ELG should collect to this level. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing a irports). The final rule does not require existing airports to collect ADF). EPA based the 60% collection requirement in the final rule, for all new sources that fall within the scope of the NSPS requirements associated with aircraft deicing, on deicing pads. All new airports in the scope of the rule are required to achieve the same collection percentage. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 24 (ACI) A fundamental flaw in EPA’s approach t o defining the scope of the Proposed Rule is that none of the parameters are related to actual use of ADF. Thresholds based on aircraft departures, regardless of type27 [Footnote 27: EPA’s exclusion of propeller aircraft ignores that fact that turbo prop a ircraft are commonly used for scheduled regional service and do get deiced under winter conditions to ensure safe operations.], do not reflect the occurrence or magnitude of actual deicing activities. EPA makes clear that it recognizes the importance of we ather in defining deicing activity because it evaluated Snow or Freezing Precipitation (SOFP) days in the statistical stratification of airports in its airport survey framework for the rule. What is not clear is why EPA chose to ignore SOFP days or other w eather - related factors in defining the scope of the Proposed Rule. We are not advocating an SOFP - type approach, per se, but we believe that using the SOFP concept in relation to other factors could create a more predictable and activity - related threshold t han merely departures. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). For NSPS, the scope is based on geographic location in cold climate zones, in combination with departures, rather than simply ADF usage or departures. See section V.C.2 of the final rule preamble and DCN AD01267. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 85 EPA Does Not Account for Benefits That Would Otherwise Occur Through the TMDL Program. Airports discharging to impaired waters are, or soon will be, subject to stringent pollutant discharge limits through the total maximum daily load (TMDL) program. Such water quality limits are more stringent that any limits that would be imposed by the Proposed Rule. According to the ACRP report, about 88 percent of459 the national total average annual ADF use is subject to regulation under either the TMDL program or an individual NPDES permit or both. 65 Sixty - one (61) airports are subject to the TMDL program (accounting for 45 percent of total annual ADF usage). EPA has not acknowledged the benefits that will already be derived through the TMDL program. Response: S ee response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). For the final rule, EPA evaluated the baseline collection and treatment processes in place a t airports across the country through the use of the statistically representative survey results. All pollutant removals are calculated by the increase in pollutants removed through the installation and operation of collection/treatment technologies as com pared to these baseline operations. An airport that was required to limit their discharges due to a TMDL limit, would be likely do so through the use of a collection/treatment technology, which would have been reported in the survey responses. MISC - Misc ellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 153 EPA’s Pesticide ELG is a good example for how EPA could approach a future Airport Deicing ELG by providing alternatives between model treatment effluent limits and model BMP technologies without limits. The Pesticide ELG provides regulated entities with a choice between zero discharge and pollution prevention alternatives. EPA relied on that single technology approach to satisfy the BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSN S standards. In fact, both the zero discharge and pollution prevention options are BMP - based. The pollution prevention alternative allows non - numerically limited wastewater discharges provided that pollution prevention BMPs are implemented at the facility . Response: The rule referenced in the above comment refers to a zero discharge requirement. The alternate approach allowed some flexibility for facilities to comply with that requirement. Today's rule similarly allows flexibility in demonstrating com pliance with the collection requirement. Specifically, for airfield deicing related discharges, compliance can be shown through certification of product substitution, but the rule also includes a numerical ammonia limit as a compliance alternative. Also see response to code TECH_FORCING, no. EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Excerpt number : 4 MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 154 EPA has not adequately accounted for the other impacts that will be created or exacerbated through implementation of the Proposed Rule, including other environmental impacts. These include the effects of adding impervious surface within the airport propert y, creating wildlife attractants through increased on site storage, and increased carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft, GRVs, other vehicles, energy usage, and required treatment systems. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING ). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports).460 For airports that do need additional on - site storage (for example, under a BPJ permit, or new sources), they most likely would choose storage t anks for collected ADF instead of holding ponds, to avoid attracting wildlife. Preventing wildlife, especially waterfowl, from gathering at airports is an important safety measure. In regard to adding impervious surfaces at airports, the final rule addre sses airport deicing discharges, not all storm water discharges that may occur due to impervious surfaces (such as when deicing is not occurring). The final rule is not anticipated to cause an expansion of impervious surfaces at airports. Storm water run off from any existing impervious surfaces at airports can be addressed through NPDES permits. As stated in the final rule preamble, the CWA directs EPA to consider various factors in developing effluent guidelines, including non - water quality environmenta l impacts. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. EPA found that air emissions from the technologies used to comply with the final rule would be negligible. See section IX of the preamble. MISC - Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 156 Increased Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Must Be Accounted For. Because EPA has not properly accounted for the potentially significant operational impacts that may result from implementation of the Proposed Rule, the basic analysis EPA conducted to determine the increased emissions associated with aircraft taxiing and queuing is inadequate. In the draft ELG rule, EPA recommends on - site anaerobic (biological) tre atment of deicing fluids, which will result in the production of methane and nitrous oxide, both of which are greenhouse gases (GHGs). In addition to increasing GHG emissions when EPA is moving toward requirements to reduce GHG emissions, this technology m ay have regulatory and financial implications for an airport with regards to finalized and emerging GHG reporting regulations. 1) On - site biological treatment of deicing fluids that generates methane and nitrous oxide will likely be a regulated source of G HG emissions on state and federal level(s). In addition to the increase of the airport’s overall GHG inventory, it may also cause an airport to surpass existing and emerging reporting thresholds or emerging reduction thresholds, and thus introduce an addit ional environmental compliance issue. This may also have financial implications for an airport. 2) Within EPA’s finalized GHG Reporting Rule (September 2009), the GHG source category of “industrial wastewater treatment”, under which treatment of deicing fl uids would likely fall, was not included as a “trigger category” in the final rule due to time constraints. However, EPA stated that they intend to include this category in the first revision of the rule in 2010. As a result, any airport that has on - site b iological wastewater treatment processes would have to model its GHG emission rates to determine whether or not it would be over the reporting threshold of 25,000 metric tons CO2e (EPA’s final report rule) or the reporting threshold of the draft congressio nal GHG legislation. If so, or if the wastewater treatment process was at an airport that had other GHG sources over the reporting threshold, then the airport would be required to monitor wastewater flows and treatment parameters, and calculate and report estimated GHG emissions from these processes annually. This could also have financial implications for an airport. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or t reatment for existing airports). Accordingly, for existing sources, comments regarding increased emissions associated with aircraft taxiing and queuing associated with CDPs are not applicable. For more information, see comment code C_CDP_BASIS, EPA comme nt response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1, Comment Excerpt 9.461 For the anaerobic treatment model technology in the NSPS portion of the rule, it is likely that the methane generated by the treatment unit will be utilized to support system heating requirements. However, EPA did perform a non - water quality impact assessment for greenhouse gas emissions and determined there was an insignificant increase in generation of air emissions. See chapter 12 of the TDD. EPA did not estimate non - water qualit y impacts specifically for new airports. EPA is unaware of any planned new airports that meet the applicability of the final rule. EPA notes that a single new major airport, Denver International, has been built in the last 25 years. MISC – Miscellaneous issues/data not otherwise covered Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1248

– 4 (Chicago) The City of Chicago is implementing the O’Hare Modernization Program (OMP), which includes runways, taxiways, and other areas where deicing fluids will be used and collected. The OMP and its supporting systems, including drainage systems for the collection of stormwater containing spent ADF and the resulting discharges to our local POTW, were subjected to a thorough, multi - year, federal environmental review and appr oval process. The USEPA and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency were coordinating agencies in that National Environmental Policy Act process, which resulted in the issuance in 2005 of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS"), a Final EIS, a nd a Record of Decision relating to the OMP. The environmental review and approval process for the OMP concluded in September 2005, shortly after the intent to issue an Effluent Limitation Guideline was announced by the USEPA in September 2004, and the CDA believes it can be inferred from the USEPA's approval that the OMP's approach to stormwater and spent ADF management is consistent with the Airport Deicing rule proposed recently. Response: While EPA estimates that O'Hare Airport will not incur signific ant costs to comply with the final rule, incorporation of the ELG requirements into the airport's NPDES permit, and determination of compliance, is the responsibility of the authorized NPDES state agency, Illinois EPA. It cannot be assumed that the Airpor t’s adherence to actions described in this EIS and ROD necessarily implies compliance with all aspects of the final deicing rule, as they will be effectuated in a permit issued by the State. NSPS_DEMO - NSPS demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 119 (ATA) The NSPS Does Not Provide an Adequate Basis for the Design of a Collection System for a New Runway that Will Assure Compliance with the Standard During the design of a collection system for a new runway, a determination would need to be made regarding the appropriate size of the collection system to meet the NSPS. Unfortunately, however, the NSPS is not clear regarding whether the collection standard applies to actual departures from a new runway or average departures from the runway. If the requirement ap plies to all actual departures from the new runway, the maximum throughput of the collection system will determine the departure limit for the new runway during winter operations. From an operations perspective, a new runway may at times be relied upon to handle a majority or all of an airport’s departures due to closure of another runway as a result of a disabled aircraft, weather, or a construction activity. Therefore, there may be times when an airport’s departures shift to a new runway,462 but the average departures from the new runway are actually much lower over time. If the NSPS applies to actual departures, the collection system will have to be over - engineered and oversized in order to account for the infrequent circumstances when airport departures are shifted to the new runway. Designing a large enough collection system would be necessary to assuring compliance with the NSPS without artificially constraining the capacity and value of the new runway. However, designing and constructing a collection syst em that is much larger than needed on a typical basis will be very costly, potentially as costly or more so than construction of the new runway, and therefore decisions about new runway construction will driven by the required size and cost of the deicing collection system required to meet NSPS. Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND) (code NSPS_OPPOSE) (the final NSPS do not set uniform requirements for new runways at existing airports). Also, while NSPS for aircraft deicing discharges applies to new primary airports located in certain geographic areas with at least 1,000 non - propeller departures and 10,000 annual departures, the collection standard itself is independent of the number of departures. Based on conversations with FAA, use of deicing pads often speeds up the rate at which an airport can get planes in the air rather than delaying them. Denver is the only new airport built within the past 25 years that would meet the NSPS applicability criteria if it had been built after this rule is promulgated. Denver incorporated deicing pads during the planning stage, and based on recent conversations with them (see DCN AD01297 ), all of their deicing is performed on deicing pads. Further, Denver stated that deicing pads actually incr ease the throughput of planes in comparison to gate deicing. Denver indicated that the ability to get planes into the air is limited by other activities rather than deicing at pads. NSPS_DEMO - NSPS demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 120 Due to the Integration of a New Runway into Existing Airport Operations, Demonstrating Compliance with the NSPS Is Unworkable for a New Runway at an Existing Airport The proposed NSPS is unworkable from a compliance demonstration pe rspective due to the integration of new runways into existing airport operations. Determination of the departure runway for a particular aircraft or time of day is governed by numerous factors, including but not limited to the weather, volume of traffic, d estination and terminal/gate location. In addition, the designated departure runway is dynamic and can change at any time due to the aforementioned factors. It is not uncommon for an aircraft’s departure runway to be assigned or reassigned after the aircra ft leaves the gate. Therefore, an aircraft that is deiced at the gate with a 20% collection system may be subsequently assigned to depart from the new runway. The NSPS either prevents the aircraft from departing the new runway because 60% of the ADF applie d to the particular aircraft has not been collected, or presents a compliance challenge for determining how to account for the fact that the aircraft departed the new runway, but only met the 20% collection requirement. The proposed NSPS presents at best a n unworkable scheme for compliance demonstration for new runways at existing airports, and potentially presents a significant operational limitation. Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND) (code NSPS_OPPOSE) (the final NSPS do not set uniform requirements for new runways at existing airports)463 NSPS_DEMO - NSPS demonstration of compliance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 11 If this newly constructed runway is then required to collect 60 percent, whereas the rest of the airpo rt’s runways must collect 20 percent ADF it leaves the airport in a nearly impossible situation. This dual set of compliance standards would be impractical to sort out for many reasons. Departure numbers are given as total figures, such information is not available by runway. It is not feasible to calculate these runway operations in the context of deicing operations and the consequent ADF runoff cannot be differentiated from other activities. Many airports conduct deicing operations at the gates and then d epart on one of the runways. It is highly unlikely that the airport would then be able to quantify the deicer that is associated with departures from each runway. If airports would be required to make this distinctive runway separation, or it was a situati on where the airport previously required 20 percent collection and is required to collect 60 percent ADF, this would provide a disincentive for new runway construction. Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND) (code NSPS_OPPOSE) (the final NSPS do not set uniform requirements for new runways at existing airports) NSPS_NOT_SUP - NSPS is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 121 (ATA) EPA’s Supporting Document Does Not Address the Statutory and Regulatory Require ments for Determining Whether New Construction Should Be Considered a “New Source” As identified in Section I and II of Part 2 these comments, in order to determine whether a construction activity results in a “new source,” it is necessary to first determi ne whether it is a “source” under the CWA, then, if so, determine whether it would be a “new source” under the NPDES regulation. In fact, in the preamble to the Proposed Deicing ELG, states that a new runway meets the terms of the NPDES regulation defining new source, but does not provide any analysis of that determination. Under the NPDES regulation, a new source must be: a) constructed at a location where no other sources exist; b) totally replace an existing source; or c) be substantially independent fro m an existing source. However, neither the preamble to the Proposed Deicing ELG nor the single support document provide any analysis under the three regulatory requirements for a new source. An appropriate analysis, as discussed in Sections I and II above, demonstrates that a new runway at an existing airport is not a new source and should not be subject to NSPS. Response: For the reasons discussed in the preamble, EPA has revised its approach from the proposal and no longer considers new runways to meet the definition of a new source. See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) (New runways at existing airports excluded from NSPS) NSPS_NOT_SUP - NSPS is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 122 EPA’s Single Su pport Document Contains a Flawed Analysis that Does Not Support the Conclusion Reached in the Document EPA’s single support document that compares average deicing pad costs to average new runway costs is not sufficient to demonstrate that new runways shoul d be defined as new464 sources, and in any case, the document contains a flawed analysis that does not support the conclusion that the average deicing pad costs are generally less than 10% of the average runway costs. a. Improper Calculation of Average Deicin g Pad Cost In order to arrive at an average deicing pad cost, EPA selected four airports: CAK, CCLE, PIT and MSP. As discussed thoroughly elsewhere in these comments, EPA derived single dollar amount deicing pad cost for each of the aforementioned airports . Making no distinction for the type, size, or number of deicing pads at each airport, EPA took the sum of the four single dollar values for each airport and divided by four in order to arrive at an average deicing pad cost of $45,050,000. As noted, this m etric does not take into account the type, size, or number of deicing pads at a particular airport, but instead is an artificial number that bears no relation to the actual cost of constructing a deicing pad and related infrastructure at an airport. b. Imp roper Calculation of Average Runway Cost In order to arrive at an average runway cost, EPA used information provided by five airports in response to a questionnaire: PHX, BOS, IAD, SEA, and ATL. The information provided included costs for design and constr uction, and in some cases project and construction management, legal and environmental costs, as well as land purchase costs. Costs ranged from $47,500,000 at PHX to $1,150,000,000 at ATL. Here too, EPA took the sum of the four single dollar values for eac h new runway and divided by five in order to arrive at an average new runway cost of $490,740,000. Given the small sample of airports and the lack of uniformity of data (some airports provided legal and land purchase costs), the average new runway cost arr ived at by EPA is not a reliable indicator of the actual runway cost at any particular airport. c. The Conclusion Reached in the Support Document Is not Supported by the Weak Analysis In order to compare the cost of constructing a deicing pad to the cost o f constructing a runway, EPA compared the average deicing pad cost and average new runway cost that were derived based on the analyses discussed in subsections i and ii above. Based on this comparison, EPA determined that the average cost of deicing pad in stallation is less than 10% of the cost of an average new runway, and therefore, it is acceptable to categorize new runways as new sources under the Proposed Deicing ELG. As noted, the “average deicing pad cost” and “average new runway cost” are fanciful n umbers that are based on limited and inconsistent data. Comparing the two numbers is not a reliable or accurate method for determining the likely additional costs of constructing an ADF fluid collection and treatment system when constructing a new runway. Response: See response to 1226.1 - 121 (NSPS NOT SUPP)(above) EPA has also revised the calculations supporting the NSPS requirements, including revised estimates of deicing pad costs and more inclusive costs to include of treatment of collected ADF. Additionally, EPA has revised the manner in which we estimate costs for new sources, as the new rule only applies to new airports. EPA has based all costs on Denver Airport, which is the only airport that was built with an extensive collection (deicing pa ds) and treatment system as part of the original design. See DCN AD01260 for details on EPA’s revised barrier to entry analysis for NSPS for the final rule. NSPS_NOT_SUP - NSPS is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 123 The EPA Sup port Document Only Address the Costs of Constructing a Deicing Pad, but Does Not Address Total Costs Associated with Meeting New Source Performance Standard 60% Collection and Treatment Requirement The EPA Support Document assumes that the only cost associ ated with meeting NSPS would be construction of a deicing pad. However, this assumption does not take into account the infrastructure that is necessary to collect and store fluid, as well as the additional treatment capacity required in order to achieve 60 % collection and treatment. Further still, the EPA support document does not take into account the added costs associated with constructing, operating and maintaining a separate deicing collection and treatment system for a new runway. Depending on existin g deicing infrastructure and operations at an airport, NSPS requirements may be inconsistent and require a duplication of465 resources and equipment. Response: See response to 1226.1 - 121 (NSPS NOT SUPP)(above) . EPA has revised the calculations supporting the NSPS requirements to include all costs associated with collection and treatment of spent ADF. See DCN AD01260 for EPA’s barrier to entry analysis for NSPS for the final rule. NSPS_NOT_SUP - NSPS is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 123 1.1 - 10 (AAAE) The NSPS would effectively eliminate the 460,000 gallon threshold for 60 percent capture, forcing such airports into more stringent compliance requirements. AAAE opposes the proposed definition of "new source" given that it would have a significant impact on smaller airports that expand runway capacity as well as provide a disincentive to other airports looking to provide congestion relief. In addition, AAAE believes that the definition of "new source" is inconsistent with the CWA. The de finition is also based on numerous unsupported assumptions concerning the effect of runway construction. Finally, AAAE opposes the proposed NSPS because it has the potential to have a significant negative impact on smaller airports despite the fact that th e activity that triggers it (runway construction) would not necessarily increase ADF usage. Response: See response to 1226.1 - 121 (NSPS NOT SUPP)(above) . Also, in evaluating NSPS for today’s final rule, EPA considered the costs of meeting today’s NSPS r equirements for both large and small airports. See DCN AD01260 for EPA’s barrier to entry analysis. NSPS_NOT_SUP - NSPS is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 12 A new runway should not be considered a "new source" given the language and intent of the EPA’s NSPS regulations. The New Source Performance Standards apply only to sources that meet the “new source” definition in 40 C.F.R. § 122.2 and the criteria outline d in 40 C.F.R. § 122.29.3 The term, "new source" means any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is or may be a “discharge of pollutants,” 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.2. Relevant to that definition, the regulations provide the following: Dis charge of pollutant means: (a) Any addition of any “pollutant” or combination of pollutants to “waters of the United States” from any “point source,”.... 40 C.F.R. § 122.2 (emphasis added). Point source means any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyanc e, including but not limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, landfill leachate collection system, vessel or other floating craft from which pollutants a re or may be discharged. This term does not include return flows from irrigated agriculture or agricultural storm water runoff. 40 C.F.R. §122.3 (emphasis added). AAAE submits that the EPA’s interpretation is both legally erroneous and factually inaccurate . First, the EPA’s interpretation of "new source" ignores the fact that a new runway is not a structure, facility, or installation from which there is or may be a “discharge" of ADF. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.2. Given that the focus of the NSPS is on ADF, the q uestion of whether there is a facility from which there may be a discharge must look at the operation that is the source of discharge of ADF. It is not the runway. As the EPA is well aware, deicing operations do not466 take place on the runway but rather are in separate locations depending on the configuration of the airport. See 74 Fed. Reg. at 44683 ("Aircraft deicing and anti - icing operations usually occur at terminal gates, gate aprons, taxiways, or centralized deicing pads. Centralized deicing pads may be located near terminals and gates, along taxiways serving departure runways, or near the departure end of runways."). In fact, as discussed below, deicing operations would rarely, if ever, be conducted at the end of runways given the impact that could have on access to the runway. Thus, a runway is neither a "facility" from which ADF may be discharged nor a "point source" of ADF as the pollutants are discharged from the location of deicing operations. [FOOTNOTE: 3 See also National Wildlife Federation v. En vironmental Protection Agency, 286 F.3d 554 (DC Cir. 2002)] Response: See response to 1226.1 - 121 (NSPS NOT SUPP)(above) NSPS_NOT_SUP - NSPS is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 13 Even if AAAE were to concede that a runway may b e considered a facility from which there may be a discharge of ADF, which we do not, the EPA’s proposed rule fails under the criteria for evaluating whether such a "new source" triggers an applicable new source performance standard. See 40 C.F.R. § 122.29. The following is the criteria for new source determination that the EPA’s discussion in the preamble attempts to address: (1) Except as otherwise provided in an applicable new source performance standard, a source is a “new source” if it meets the definit ion of “new source” in §122.2, and (i) It is constructed at a site at which no other source is located; or (ii) It totally replaces the process or production equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants at an existing source; or (iii) Its processes ar e substantially independent of an existing source at the same site. In determining whether these processes are substantially independent, the Director shall consider such factors as the extent to which the new facility is integrated with the existing plant ; and the extent to which the new facility is engaged in the same general type of activity as the existing source. 40 C.F.R. § 122.29 (emphasis added). Construction of a new runway would not be located at a site where no other source is located nor totally replace an existing source under the criteria of 40 C.F.R. § 122.29(1)(i) and (ii). Therefore, as discussed in the preamble, the EPA may classify a new runway under the “new source” criteria only by demonstrating that the new runway has processes that are “substantially independent of an existing source at the same site.” 74 Fed. Reg. at 44694. Response: See response to 1226.1 - 121 (NSPS NOT SUPP)(above) NSPS_NOT_SUP - NSPS is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 14 The EPA's analy sis of whether a new runway would be "substantially independent" of other sources of ADF discharges ignores the relevant standard and is based on unsubstantiated and inaccurate assumptions. First, the EPA is incorrect in its base assumption that a new runw ay would not be integrated into the airport. Runways are unquestionably integrated into existing operations - the traffic patterns on and across the runways are coordinated and centrally managed. Moreover, deicing operations do not actually take place on r unways but are often centralized or located to serve more than one set of gates or runways. It is the experience of AAAE's members that decisions concerning location of deicing operations are made considering a broad number of safety and operational factor s on an airport - wide basis. Thus, both runways and deicing operations are integrated into the airport as a whole.467 Response: See response to 1226.1 - 121 (NSPS NOT SUPP)(above) NSPS_NOT_SUP - NSPS is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 15 The EPA’s apparent assumption that a new runway would include construction of a new deicing operation at its end is not supported. All airports are unique and the analysis of where to place a deicing operation to serve any particular runway would be made based on that airport's unique circumstances. Depending on the location, a centralized deicing operation may serve multiple runways. Moreover, placing deicing operations at the end of a runway is often undesirable given the impact it has on safety an d operations such as possible delay of flights if the deicing is somehow delayed and blockage of access to the runway. Response: See response to 1226.1 - 121 (NSPS NOT SUPP)(above) NSPS_NOT_SUP - NSPS is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1 231.1 - 16 Construction of a new runway does not predetermine the need for additional deicing facilities or even use of increased ADF. In fact, an additional runway often increases airport efficiency, which will reduce ADF usage by alleviating the need to re - treat planes that were delayed due to runway congestion. There is no basis to assume that construction of a runway would increase overall deicing discharges because of that runway. New runways are frequently constructed in order to eliminate congestion both in the airspace surrounding the facility as well as on the ground. Additional congestion in the airspace creates the need for supplementary fuel and thus creates unnecessary fuel burn as aircraft are forced to continue their holding patterns. This wo uld then counteract any negligible impact possibly gained from placing the unnecessary burden of collecting 60 percent ADF on a newly constructed runway. Response: See response to 1226.1 - 121 (NSPS NOT SUPP)(above) NSPS_NOT_SUP - NSPS is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 17 Even more critically, Chicago’s capacity has increased during inclement weather, when deicing operations would be utilized. The FAA states that ORD’s maximum capacity before the new runway was 96 arrivals per hour in good weather, and now that number has c limbed to 112 per hour. Prior to this runway construction, O’Hare would not allow landings on one of two arrival runways while snowplows were activated. Now landings can continue on two runways. This then would reduce ground delays, and not only allow for an increase in runway arrivals, but would allow for expedited movement on the ground, and less need for duplicative deicing efforts. Additional runways are also constructed at airports in order to reduce delays on the ground. As aircraft are held up on tax iways due to congestion, many times additional aircraft deicing must be done prior to take off. This disincentive for new runway construction has now exacerbated two significant operational issues with two additional environmental impacts.468 Response: See response to 1226.1 - 121 (NSPS NOT SUPP)(above) NSPS_NOT_SUP - NSPS is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 10 (ACI) The Proposed New Source Performance Standards May Present a Barrier to Entry for New Runways We understand that NSP S are promulgated under the belief that new sources have the opportunity to install the best available technology. EPA has determined that deicing pads are BAT for collecting 60 percent of applied ADF that is available for discharge. EPA has also determine d that the proposed NSPS would not pose a “barrier to entry” for new runways because “the costs for a centralized deicing pad are estimated at ten percent or less of the total cost for a new runway.” While we generally agree with the notion that new source s have the best opportunity to install the best technology, we find EPA’s analysis of this issue to be flawed and incomplete. In fact, the installation of deicing pads in conjunction with a new runway may not be possible or operationally optimal given any particular airport’s circumstances. For example, as with several airports currently proposed to meet 60 percent collection requirements, there may not be space available to construct a deicing pad in conjunction with a new runway while still meeting the FA A required setback requirements for safe operations. Additionally, if current deicing activities occur near terminal areas, it may not be operationally optimal to establish a separate deicing area away from those already designated areas. EPA also stops sh ort of fully analyzing the costs associated with 60 percent collection and treatment for new sources. EPA’s conclusion that deicing pads represent less than ten percent of the cost of a new runway is based on a memo comparing costs for installation of deic ing pads at four airports with costs to install new runways at five different airports.14 The analysis contained in this memo is specious and based on an extremely small sample of incomparable project cost data from disparate airports incurred at disparate times. As we have continuously demonstrated to EPA, every airport is unique. Even the costs associated with the installation of the same type of technology or infrastructure (here deicing pads and runways) at four or five different airports cannot be used to predict the approximate cost of installing the same type of infrastructure at another airport. This unpredictability is particular true for a technology such as deicing pads whose costs will vary greatly depending upon a number of variables, including the type and volume of winter precipitation typically received, runway and taxiway use patterns during winter operations, the type and number of aircraft operations that occur during deicing events, available space, number and location of pads, and whether the pads are constructed as part of a larger project. This variation is evident from the four airport pad costs (ranging from $5,100,000 to $79,300,000) relied on in EPA’s analysis which reflect airports with very different pad systems designed to meet ea ch airport’s specific needs. Even the number of pads included in each airport’s system varied. The cost to install deicing pads cannot be determined from simply averaging the cost estimates for these highly varied systems. EPA compared the average pad inst allation cost to the averaged cost of the installation of a new runway. The installation costs for a new runway are calculated by averaging the costs to install a runway at five different airports, ranging from $47,500,000 to $1,150,000,000. Again, the cos ts associated with the installation of a new runway are obviously highly variable and cannot simply be determined by averaging the costs associated with the installation of five other runways. A number of factors also impact the expected cost of installing a new runway, including available land, topographic and geotechnical issues associated with the runway site, runway length and width requirements, and costs to mitigate environmental impacts, among others. This variation is again evident from the runway c osts used in EPA’s analysis which range from $47,500,000 for a 7,800 foot runway in Phoenix to $1,150,000,000 for a 9,000 - foot long runway Atlanta. It is notable in this particular comparison that Phoenix’s runway was constructed entirely within airport pr operty boundaries on a reasonably flat site, whereas Atlanta’s runway involved substantial property acquisition; extensive site preparation; and substantial new taxiway infrastructure, including expensive taxiway bridges over an interstate highway. The sta ndard deviations associated with the cost data used in the analysis clearly469 emphasize the significant variations in the project cost data and suggest that a great deal of caution should be used in drawing conclusions based on simple arithmetic averages of these limited data. The standard deviation of the four deicing pad cost estimates is $32 million, almost three - fourths of the average of $45 million. The standard deviation of the five runway cost estimates is $507 million, which exceeds their average of $ 490 million. Even without conducting any statistical analysis, we can easily see that the costs of pad systems at both Cleveland and Minneapolis - St. Paul exceeded the cost of a new runway at Phoenix. Additionally, EPA made no analysis of data from airports installing deicing pads and a runway during the same project. Therefore, we find it extremely troubling that EPA ultimately concluded that the cost of installing a pad would not impose a barrier to entry based on this memo. Even if EPA’s estimate that dei cing pad installation costs equate to approximately 10 percent of the cost of installing a new runway, those costs are not insignificant. For example, Port Columbus International Airport is expending $160 million to replace and relocate its south runway. T he project will be funded through a combination of FAA provided funding and revenue generated by the airport through the collection of passenger facility charges. The airport already has extensive infrastructure in place to collect and treat its deicing fl uid, meeting all the applicable environmental regulations. The addition of $16 million dollars to such a project for the installation of a deicing pad, which is unlikely to provide additional environmental benefit, would create a significant financial chal lenge to the airport. More importantly, EPA limited the runway to pad cost comparison to deicing pad installation costs only. This incomplete analysis fails to account for the true costs associated with requiring 60 percent collection for departures associ ated with a new runway. There are significant annual operations and maintenance costs, along with operational costs and impacts that must be factored into deicing pad costs. EPA must also account for the associated storage, conveyance, and treatment costs that will result from collecting additional ADF. Once the complete costs associated with 60 percent ADF collection and treatment are taken into consideration, the barrier to constructing a new runway becomes significantly higher. Overall, EPA cannot rely o n this oversimplified and statistically flawed memo as the basis for its determination that the costs of installing a deicing pad while constructing a new runway are not significant enough to present a barrier to entry for new runways. Additionally, a more complete analysis of the full costs associated with imposed 60 percent collection must be performed. We see no actual data in the administrative record to support EPA’s conclusion. Response: See response to 1226.1 - 121 (NSPS NOT SUPP)(above) EPA has revi sed the calculations supporting the NSPS requirements to include all costs associated with collection and treatment of spent ADF. See DCN AD01260 for EPA’s barrier to entry analysis for the final rule. See also response to 1226.1 - 122 (above). NSPS_NOT _SUP - NSPS is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 11 EPA’s Proposed NSPS Are Not Cost - Effective if Applied to Existing Airports Should EPA include new runways within the definition of a “new source,” EPA’s proposed NSPS will essenti ally require those airports planning to construct a new runway to collect 60 percent of all available ADF applied at that airport. As discussed above, it is impossible for an airport to distinguish operations, and thus deicing collection requirements, by r unway. Therefore, it is likely that an airport constructing a new runway will have to collect 60 percent of available ADF applied at the entire airport. At airports currently subject to 20 percent collection requirements, collecting additional ADF would re quire extensive infrastructure for necessary collection, storage, and treatment. In essence, the NSPS proposal relating to runway and other construction would result in an eventual conversion of many airports to the 60 percent collection requirements over time, even though EPA already determined are not cost - effective for most airports when it established an annual ADF usage threshold of 460,000 gallons for the 60 percent collection requirements.15 [Footnote 15: EPA’s preamble raises the prospect that NSPS could be applied by permit470 writers not only to new runways, but also to other significant construction projects. 74 Fed. Reg. at 44,694. To demonstrate how this conversion to NSPS might occur, ACI - NA members have reported that at least 10 new runways have been opened since 2003, and another 10 are projected to be built this decade. Further, if permit writers decide that major runway enhancements or extensions also should be subject to NSPS, then the conversion to the 60 percent collection standard will occu r even faster than through new runway construction.] Also, as we will later discuss, it may already be impossible or extremely cost - inefficient for infrequent ADF users to collect 20 percent of available ADF. Requiring those airports to collect 60 percent even further compounds this already impossible feat. There simply is no logical reason for treating two otherwise similar airports differently from a regulatory perspective because one built a new runway. We have demonstrated and EPA has asserted that ther e is no direct connection between numbers of runways, age of runways, or other runway “attributes” that impact how much ADF will be used at any given airport. Hence, EPA’s proposal to treat these similar airports (assuming they fit the 20 percent collectio n category before runway construction) differently after such construction is arbitrary and capricious and inconsistent with Congressional intent with regard to NSPS. Response: See response to 1226.1 - 121 (NSPS NOT SUPP)(above) NSPS_NOT_SUP - NSPS is not supported Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1241.1 - 11 (Akron - Canton Airport) According to page 44716 of the proposed rule, a new source is defined as: 1“Any new Primary Airport” 2“Any new runway constructed at a Primary Airport, the deicing operatio ns associated with the departures on the new runway and the deicing of paved surfaces associated with the new runway.” On page 44694 of the proposed rule, it states, “it is possible that permit authorities, on a case - by - case bases, would be able to deem ot her types of construction activity for aircraft movement areas to constitute a new source as well. For example, a permit authority might deem the substantial improvement or replacement of an existing runway to be a new source if that activity is deemed to ‘totally replace the process or production equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants.’” This definition of a new source in the Proposed Rule provides broad discretion to the local permit writer, potentially allowing a number of airport projects tha t affect capacity to be considers as new sources. CAK is unclear if certain improvements included in our 10 Year Capital Improvement Plan would be considered as new sources for the Proposed Rule. For example, we have been implementing a runway extension, p rojects for increased aircraft parking, and a concourse expansion. These improvements do not consist of a new airport or new runway, but they could be interpreted as new sources by individual permit writers. If an improvement project that CAK implements tr iggers the new source performance standards, it is possible that additional monitoring, storage, and treatment may be required. It is unclear if the Proposed Rule would require all ADF at CAK to comply with the new source performance standards, or only ADF associated with the improvement that is considered a new source. If only ADF associated with the new source is held to the increased collection standard, it may not be feasible to distinguish between ADF associated with existing vs. new sources, thus forc ing all ADF to comply with the new collection standard. Also, it would be difficult to determine which ADF is associated with a project such as a runway extension, increased aircraft parking, or expansion of a concourse. ADF is generally applied at the dei cing pads at CAK and may not be directly associated with those projects. In implementation of capital improvement projects at CAK, it is necessary to be able to identify the associated costs. Because of the ambiguous language pertaining to new sources in t he Proposed Rule, it may be difficult for CAK to predict costs from planned improvement projects associated with ADF collection and treatment. Response: See response to 1226.1 - 121 (NSPS NOT SUPP)(above)471 NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1189.1 - 7 (Airport Assn. of ND) If an airport that does not meet the 10,000 commercial departure threshold builds a runway, that runway should not be considered a "new source". Response: EPA has changed its view from the pro posal and now concludes that a new runway constructed at an existing airport should not be considered a “new source” for purposes of the NSPS standards in the final rule, for the reasons explained in Section V.C. of the preamble. Therefore, NSPS in the fi nal rule applies to new airports only. It does not apply to new runways constructed at existing airports. NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 2 (ANC Airport) New Source Rule: New source rule should only apply to new airfields and not to new runways at existing airfields. To try to have GRV's for some takeoffs and a pad for others depending on runway use will be very difficult to do operationally. Response: ( See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1 - 5 (IATA) Requiring new facilities for new runways will most likely inhibit the construction of these needed facilities due to prohibitive costs; increased traffic on existing runways will degrade safety on those runways. Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Air port Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1219.1 - 6 (NATA) NATA disagrees with the designation of new runway construction as a new source. NATA believes that the existing structure of the rule accounts for any significant increases in de - icing activity relating to airport expansion. If, after expansion, an airport ’s annual ADF usage remains below the 460,000 - gallon threshold, it is nonsensical to require multi - tiered compliance at the same facility. In the event that an airport expansion does create enough additional de - icing activity so as to bring the facility ab ove the 460,000 - gallon threshold, the airport would then be subject to the higher collection standards contained in the ELG, which are equivalent to the NSPS. Response:472 See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NSPS_OPPOSE - O ppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 31 (ATA) New Source Performance Standards The proposed New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) would require 60% collection of available ADF from all new sources.86 For the purposes of NSPS applicability, the Proposed Rule defines “new source” to include “any new runway constructed at a Primary Airport, the deicing operations associated with the departures on the new runway and the deicing of paved surfaces associated with the new run way.” 87 In effect, the Proposed Rule would require new runways at existing Tier Two airports to achieve the Tier One collection efficiency of 60% of Available ADF. As addressed in greater detail in Section VIII of these comments, the proposal to define ne w runways as new sources and subject to NSPS is not appropriate under, and inconsistent with, the CWA and EPA regulations and policy. While the preamble to the Proposed Rule states that a new runway would be deemed to be a new source only if it meets all o f the criteria in existing EPA regulations, the language of the Proposed Rule contradicts the preamble by prescriptively defining all new runways as new sources without consideration of existing regulatory criteria. EPA should remove new runways from the d efinition of new source in the proposed rule and instead refer to existing regulatory criteria for new source determinations. Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment I nfo: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 113 Construction of a New Runway at an Existing Airport and Should Not Be Considered a New Source under the Proposed Rule. A new runway at an existing airport should not be defined as a new source under the Proposed Deic ing ELG because new runways: (1) do not discharge ADF; (2) are not substantially independent from an existing airport; and (3) are highly integrated with existing operations at airports. In short, a new runway at an existing airport is not a “new source” u nder the CWA and existing EPA regulations for making new source determinations. Under the Proposed Rule, a “new source” includes “any new runway constructed at a Primary Airport, the deicing operations associated with the departures on the new runway and t he deicing of paved surfaces associated with the new runway.” § 449.2. Therefore, based on the definition in the Proposed Rule, a new runway would be subject to NSPS. However, defining a new runway as a new source is not legally supported and would result in significant costs with unworkable compliance requirements for airports. Rather than prescriptively defining the term “new source” to include a new runway at an existing airport, the Proposed Rule should allow for new source determinations to be made bas ed on the existing laws, regulations and policy. Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 114473 A Runway Is not a “Source” as Defined Under Clean Water Act Section 306 (33 U.S.C.A. § 1316) Construction of a new runway at an existing airport cannot be considered a “new source” under the Proposed Deicing ELG because a runway is not within the definitio n of “source” under the CWA. The CWA defines “source” as “any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is or may be the discharge of pollutants.” 33 U.S.C.A. § 1316(a)(3). While a runway is structure, there is no discharge of ADF fro m a runway, and therefore, a runway is not a “source” under the CWA. As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Deicing ELG, aircraft deicing operations do not occur on runways, but rather at terminal gates, gate aprons, taxiways, or centralized deicing pads, among other locations. See 74 Fed. Reg. 46683. ADF is applied to aircraft to remove snow, ice and frost from aircraft surfaces. Most of ADF drains from the aircraft surfaces to the ground where the aircraft is deiced. Under certain conditions, a high - viscosity anti - icing fluid is then applied to the aircraft to provide protection against additional accumulation of snow and ice. The anti - icing fluid generally remains on the wing as a thin protective film and ultimately shears off during the departure of the aircr aft. In any case, there is no discharge of deicing fluids from runways. To the extent that deicing fluid is not discharged to the surface where it is applied, it comes off the aircraft in imperceptible amounts that are widely dispersed. Since aircraft deic ing fluid is not discharged from runways, a runway is not a “source” under the CWA. Therefore, a new runway at an existing airport cannot be defined as a “new source” under the Proposed Deicing ELG. Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 115 Construction of a New Source at an Existing Airport Is Not Within the Definition of “New Source” under NPDES Regulations Construction of a new runway at an existing airport is not within the definition of “new source” under NPDES regulations 40 CFR §§ 122.2 and 122.29. Consistent with CWA Section 306, a new source is defined under 40 CFR § 122.2 as “any building, structure, facility, or installa tion from which there is or may be a discharge of pollutants,” construction of which is commenced after promulgation of applicable NSPS. New source is defined further under 40 CFR § 122.29, criteria for new source determination, which states that: Except a s otherwise provided in an applicable new source performance standard, a source is a “new source” if it meets the definition in § 122.2 and: (i) it is constructed at a site at which no other source is located; or (ii) it totally replaces the process or pro duction equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants at an existing source; or (iii) its processes are substantially independent of an existing source at the same site. In determining whether these processes are substantially independent, the Director shall consider such factors as the extent to which the new facility is integrated with the existing plant; and the extent to which the new facility is engaged in the same general type of activity as the existing source. 40 CFR § 122.29(b)(1). A new runway at an existing airport does not meet any of the three tests established in 40 CFR 122.29 for a new source. First, a new runway is constructed at an existing airport that is already a source and potentially subject to the requirements of the Proposed Deici ng ELG. Therefore, a new runway is not constructed at a site at which no other sources are located and 40 CFR § 122.29(b)(1)(i) is not satisfied. Second, a new runway is an addition to an existing airport and does not totally replace the process or product ion equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants at an existing source. A new runway is integrated into the existing operations at an airport and aircraft using a new runway will be deiced in accordance with existing deicing practices. And, as discuss ed in Section I above, deicing operations do not occur on runways. Therefore, a new runway does not totally, or even partially, replace the process or production equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants at an existing source and 40 CFR § 122.29(1) (b)(ii) is not satisfied. Finally, a new runway is not substantially independent of an existing source at the same site. All new runways are highly integrated into the existing airports where they are constructed. Since EPA has provided detailed guidance474 f or determining whether a source is substantially independent in the preamble to the final NPDES regulations, this issue is discussed in more detail in subsection B, below. Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 116 New Runways Do Not Satisfy the Substantially Independent Test First, new runways are fully integrated into existing airports from a general operations perspective and, more specifically, from a deicing operations perspective. A new runway may be constructed for a variety of reasons, including to improve safety during poor weather conditions, accommodate larger aircraft (though not necessarily increase capacity), or impr ove operational capability during adverse wind conditions. In all circumstances, a new runway is designed to be fully integrated with an existing airport. Taxiways associated with the new runway connect to airport gates and ramp areas, as well as other run ways and taxiways. Once a new runway is constructed, aircraft arriving at an airport may be assigned by air traffic controllers to land on any runway at an airport (subject to length and size requirements) depending on airports conditions. Likewise, when r eady for departure, an aircraft may be assigned by air traffic controllers to depart on any runway including the newly constructed runway. Given the integration of new runways into existing airports, it is not possible to know for certain whether an aircra ft will depart from a particular runway and it is most efficient of all aircraft of a particular operator to be deiced consistently. Requiring the installation and operation of a deicing pad for operations at a new runway would likely result in duplicate c osts and infrastructure and significant inefficiency due to inconsistency with existing deicing operational practices. The second factor under the substantially independent test is whether a new facility is engaged in the same general type of activity as a n existing source. As emphasized in Section I, deicing does not occur on a runway, and therefore, a runway is not a source. Nevertheless, a new runway is constructed for the same basic purpose as other existing runways at an airport: for the landing and ta king off of aircraft. To the extent that aircraft are deiced during winter operations, all aircraft are generally deiced in a similar manner (with variations according to specific operator procedures), regardless of which runway that they ultimately depart . Therefore, a new runway and operations associated with a new runway are of the same general type of activity as already occur at the existing airport and existing runways. Based on an application of the substantially independent test, a new runway at an existing airport is not a new source since a new runway is fully integrated into an existing airport and the new runway allows for the same general type of activity (i.e., takeoffs and landings) as already conducted by the existing airport. In the Proposed Deicing ELG, EPA failed to conduct an assessment of a new runway under the substantially independent test, and instead, simply stated the belief, without providing any supporting analysis, that new runways are not significantly integrated into existing ai rport operations. Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 117 Defining a New Runway at an Existing Airport Is Not Consistent with EPA Policy for New Sources Defining a new runway as a new source is also not consistent with EPA policy for new sources as established in the preamble to the final NPDES rule. One concept behind the regulation of new facilities475 as new sources subject to NSPS is that they have the opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment technologies. Under this concept, construction of a new source all ows for the opportunity to install new technology without incurring costly retrofits and/or duplication of existing technology. However, installation of a new runway at an existing airport does not fit within this concept since it does not provide an oppor tunity to install the best and most efficient processes and wastewater treatment technologies. The installation of infrastructure to support the 60% collection and associated treatment standard would require significant resources, expenditure, and construc tion activity, well beyond any construction associated with a new runway. As documented elsewhere in these comments, satisfying the 60% collection standard requires much more than constructing a concrete pad adjacent to a runway, but also requires installa tion of extensive piping, large storage capacity, and treatment, all of which must be installed in a manner that does not significantly disrupt operations at an active airport or pose a safety hazard. Operationally, the most efficient approach is to integr ate a runway with an existing airport and conduct deicing operations associated with a new runway in a manner consistent with the deicing operations for the entire airport. Defining a new runway as a new source would require installation of a deicing pad c ollection system and associated treatment to meet the NSPS. In addition to the administrative and operational challenges of trying to determine and keep track of when a particular aircraft might use the new runway for departure, requiring the installation of a pad for the new runway would likely require installation of duplicate infrastructure and purchasing and operation of additional deicing equipment to operate deicing operations associated with a new runway. In order to enable efficient and cost - effecti ve deicing operations, an airport’s deicing operations must be managed on an airport - wide basis. Ultimately, construction of a new runway does not offer an opportunity to install the best and most efficient treatment technology. Response: See response t o 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 118 An Increase in Capacity Is Not the Standard for Making a New Source Determination under EPA Regulations, and in Any Case, a New Runway at an Existing Airport Does Not Necessarily Result in a Capacity Increase In the preamble to the Proposed Deicing ELG, EPA bases its decision to define a new runway as a new source, in part, on the belief that “few new airports will be constructed in the foreseeable future, and that most of the anticipated increase in airport capacity will be through expansion of existing airports.” See 74 Fed. Reg. 44694. Put another way, EPA has defined the term “new source” to include a new runway at an existing airport in order to address increased capacity through expansion of existing airports. Unfortunately, however, there are two significant flaws with EPA’s decision to use increased capacity as the basis for defining a new runway as a new sour ce. First, increased capacity is not the appropriate test for determining whether a construction activity results in a new source. As thoroughly detailed in Section II, above, the list of factors identified in 40 CFR 122.29 should be evaluated, including a n application of the substantially independent test, in order to determine whether a construction activity results in a new source. Therefore, considering capacity alone is not sufficient to classify a construction activity as a new source. Second, constru ction of a new runway at an existing airport does not necessarily result in increased capacity. While EPA evaluated the average costs of runway construction, see Section VIII(F), below, EPA did not evaluate the purpose of conducting new runway projects. In many instances, new runways are not intended to enhance capacity, but rather to provide greater safety margins. For example, a new runway may be constructed in a different angle than the existing runway and prevailing wind direction for use during crosswi nd conditions. In this situation, traffic would shift to the new runway during crosswind conditions, but overall capacity would not necessarily increase. Another example of a runway project that does not necessarily increase capacity is the construction of a longer runway that476 provides greater margins of safety and potentially provides access to new aircraft types. Ultimately, while there are a variety of general reasons for construction of a new runway, the actual reason for construction and purpose of a n ew runway is airport and project specific. Since an increase in capacity is not the appropriate test for determining whether an activity will result in a new source and the purpose for new runway projects cannot be generalized, the definition of new source should not include a new runway at an existing airport and EPA should make new source determinations on a case - by - case basis according to existing regulations and policy. Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NS PS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 124 The Proposed ELG Should Not Specifically Define New Source to Include a New Runway at an Existing Airport, but Instead Should Refer to the Existing Criteria Established under CWA and EPA Regulations for Making New Source Determinations In the preamble to the Proposed Deicing ELG, EPA states its intention to specify that a new runway is a new source. 74 Fed. Reg. 44694. EPA states the belief that, in general, new runways a re not significantly integrated with existing airport facilities in a way that should prevent them from being new sources. Id. As a caveat, EPA notes further in the preamble that a “new runway or other runway construction activity would be deemed to be a n ew source only if it meets all of the criteria” in existing EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.2 and 122.29. However, the language of the Proposed Deicing ELG contains no such caveat. The Proposed Deicing ELG defines a new runway at a Primary Airport as a new source under all circumstances. As the preceding discussion and analysis in Sections I to V above make clear, new runways at existing airports do not satisfy the established criteria under existing EPA regulations for new source determinations. Instea d of specifically defining new source to include a new runway at an existing airport, the Proposed Deicing ELG should refer to existing EPA regulations 40 CFR §§ 122.2 and 122.29 for making new source determinations. While ATA believes that there are few, if any, conceivable situations where a new runway at an existing airport would satisfy the criteria for new source determination, relying on existing regulations would be consistent with past EPA practice and would allow for an evaluation of the characteri stics and factors for which a specific runway project is being carried out. Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 16 To the extent EPA can under the requirements of the Clean Water Act for "New Sources," please do not designate new runway construction at existing airports as new sources. This would create differential requirements within one facility. It would be difficu lt to administer by the permittee and difficult to enforce by the permitting authority. Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE)477 NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 8 (PA NY/NJ) Runways cannot be separated from airports as a whole. For new sources, the Proposed Rule segments the operation of one part of the facility (a new runway) from the operation of the remainder of the facility (other runways, taxiways, apron and ramps, and terminal buildings). Specifically, the Proposed Rule defines a new source as including “Any new runway constructed at a Primary Airport, the deicing operations associated with the departures on the new runway and the deicing of paved surfaces a ssociated with the new runway.”15 A runway is not a source of aircraft deicing fluid; ADF is applied by airlines to aircraft at the gate, the apron or a deicing pad, but not on or at a runway. The runway is not the source of ADF, so it cannot be a “new sou rce.” In addition, the Port Authority airports are integrated facilities that cannot segment certain airline operations or portions of the airfield and operate them differently. EPA does not consider in the Proposed Rule that many airports in the United St ates have unacceptable rates of delays. EWR, LGA, and JFK are consistently ranked as the most delayed airports in the country. EPA has not considered that airports with limited capital would refrain from building a new runway to accommodate air traffic due to the extra cost of constructing collection and treatment systems. EPA has failed to assess the economic impact of exacerbating delays at airports across the United States through the implementation of this rule. Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 3 (ACI) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Should Be Limited to New Airports The CWA defines “new source” at CWA Section 306(a)(2) and sets forth requirements for NSPS in CWA 306(b). EPA has also promulgated regulations regarding NSPS at 40 CFR 122.29. In its Proposed Rule, EPA has defined a new source as “(1) Any new Primary Airport constructed a fter [date of promulgation]; and (2) Any new runway constructed at a Primary Airport, the deicing operations associated with the departures on the new runway and the deicing of paved surfaces associated with the new runway.” EPA included a new runway withi n the definition of a new source based on the incorrect conclusion that a new runway meets the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program regulatory definition and criteria for a “new source.”5 [Footnote 5: As defined in 40 CFR 122.2, a new source is any new “building, structure, facility or installation from which there is or may be a ‘discharge of pollutants’....” 40 CFR 122.29(b) sets out specific criteria for determining whether a source qualifies as a “new source.” In addition to mee ting the 40 CFR 122.2 “new source” definition, a source must also meet one of the following criteria: “(i) It is constructed at a site at which no other source is located; or (ii) It totally replaces the process or production equipment that causes the disc harge of pollutants at an existing source; or (iii) Its processes are substantially independent of an existing source at the same site. In determining whether these processes are substantially independent, the Director shall consider such factors as the ex tent to which the new facility is integrated with the existing plant; and the extent to which the new facility is engaged in the same general type of activity as the existing source.”] For a new runway to qualify as a “new source,” it must first meet the d efinition of a “source”: “any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is or may be a discharge of pollutants.”6 [Footnote 6: 40CFR 122.29 (a)(2).] EPA’s Proposed Rule and related technical development documents are virtually devoid of analyses that justify its proposed NSPS provisions as they relate to runways or related “enhancement” construction, and provide no associated economic impact or benefits analyses.7 [Footnote 7: In its proposal, EPA’s only justification478 for incorporating runway construction in its NSPS standard is: EPA does not believe in general that new runways will be significantly integrated with existing airport facilities in a way that should prevent them from being identified as new sources (see § 122.29(b)(iii)). 74 Fed. Reg. 444676, 44,694 (2009). EPA’s Technical Development Document only addresses the construction of a new airport, DIA, as its justification for its proposed NSPS collection standard. See Technical Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitat ion Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (July 2009)(hereinafter TDD) at 13 - 7. While the DIA example may support treating construction of a new airport as a basis for NSPS standards for such new construction, it does not provide any ju stification for including other construction at existing airports, including runways.] EPA’s proposed NSPS requirements are illogical and unworkable in practice. Hence, EPA should limit the definition of a “new source” to “any new Primary Airport construct ed after [date of promulgation].” Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 4 Practical Considerations Demonstrate Why Even Signific ant Construction or Redevelopment at Airports Should Not Be Considered New Sources. In addition to legal reasons why ACI - NA asserts that anything short of constructing a new airport should not result in EPA applying NSPS standards to airports, there are nu merous practical reasons neither a new runway nor any other airport construction project should be subject to NSPS. Runways and other construction projects are not sources of ADF pollutant discharges; they are not independent of other existing sources; and they will not necessarily result in an increase in ADF usage. The aircraft movement and deicing operations are wholly integrated within an airport system. There is no distinguishable “source” at an airport for which NSPS could apply. The actual source of ADF pollutant discharges is the aircraft operating in winter conditions, thus requiring the application of ADF. For the reasons set forth below, EPA’s proposed NSPS standards would create an unworkable menagerie of ADF collection and treatment standards in ways that have no reasonable relationship to the actual processes of deicing aircraft. Further, they would create obstacles to future airport operations, maintenance, and capacity enhancement by creating uncertainty until after the fact whether or not a p ermitting authority will consider such operations within the NSPS scheme. Hence, EPA’s proposed NSPS standards are arbitrary and capricious. Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new r unway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 5 Runways Are Not New Sources The Agency specifically determined that a new runway meets the criteria for a “new source” because it is “substantially independent of an existing source at the same site.” An airport, however, cannot be compared to a traditional plant or factory from which a new process, production line, or piece of equipment can be clearly distinguished as a new source of discharge associated with the existing facility. Specifically, a new ru nway should not be considered a new source for a number of reasons: (1) A runway is not a source of pollutant discharges from aircraft deicing activity; (2) A new runway is not “substantially independent” of an existing source; and (3) A new runway will no t necessarily result in additional deicing activity at the airport.479 Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 6 A Runway is Not a Source of Pollutant Discharges Associated With Aircraft Deicing Activity. Not only does a new runway not meet the legal definition of new source, but an existing runway cannot even be considered a source because runways are not sources of pollutant discharges from aircraft deicing activities.8 [Footnote 8: To the extent that certain Type IV ADF may “shear off” of an aircraft’s outer surfaces during take - off, EPA already has stated that such pollutants are “non - point source” pollution outsi de the scope of NPDES permitting regulations (74 Fed. Reg. at 44686).] Further, to the extent that a runway may be considered the source of pollutant discharges associated with pavement deicers, EPA’s proposed NSPS to address these discharges are moot. Air ports apply pavement deicers to runways, taxiways, ramp areas and other paved surfaces to ensure safe operations in winter conditions. The proposed NSPS associated with pavement deicing discharges requires that the airport either certify it does not use ai rfield deicing products containing urea or meet specified ammonia discharge limits. The NSPS do not differ from the airfield pavement discharge BAT proposed for existing sources. The whole purpose of NSPS is to force pollutant generating operations to “bui ld into” the new source those “best available demonstrated control technologies” to most efficiently limit pollutants generated by that source. However, runways do not generate any pollutants to begin with, and the quantity of pollutants generated through the use of the runway generally is not impacted by whether the runway is new or “existing.” Any airport subject to the NSPS would already be subject to the same airfield BAT requirements, and thus, would already meet the airfield pavement discharge NSPS. S ection 449.10(c) of the Proposed Rule requires that an airport “certify that it does not use airfield deicing products that contain urea.” This certification is not specific to any particular runway, taxiway, or other paved area; it applies to the airport airfield in its entirety. A new runway would presumably not fall outside the scope of the certification. As an alternative, an airport choosing not to meet the certification requirement can demonstrate compliance with numeric discharge limits for ammonia. Again, these limits apply to the entire airport facility. Because the NSPS proposed for airfield pavement discharges are irrelevant, we presume EPA intended to include a new runway as a new source in order to address potential discharges associated with ai rcraft deicing. While ADF - related pollutant discharges appear to be driving the proposed NSPS, ADF application, in most cases, occurs at locations away from airport runways. Most typically, these operations occur on or near aircraft parking aprons, in the vicinity of airport terminal buildings. At fewer airports, deicing operations take place on dedicated deicing pads which are usually sited at centralized locations near where aircraft exit terminal aprons. Note that because of FAA design standards that hav e been instituted to ensure safe operations on runways and taxiways,9 [Footnote 9: These standards are enumerated in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300 - 13, Airport Design (Change 14) (2008), specifically standards related to runway and taxiway separations deli neated in Tables 2 - 2 and 2 - 3 of the document.] aircraft deicing pads adjacent to runways at commercial service airports generally must be sited at least 560 feet away from runway centerlines.10 [Footnote 10: The 560 foot separation cited here represents th e required setback of fixed or movable objects from a runway and associated parallel taxiway for FAA Airplane Design Group V aircraft, which many commercial service airports have been designed to serve. This separation consists of a 400 foot separation bet ween runway centerline and parallel taxiway centerline and 160 foot separation between the parallel taxiway centerline and fixed or movable objects (i.e., aircraft parked on the deicing pad during deicing operations). Note that this minimum separation can be up to 200 feet more if the runway in question is equipped for low visibility operations.] In most cases, the distance between the locations where deicing operations are conducted and runway centerlines is substantially greater. For example, at one of th e airports cited in EPA’s documents, Denver International Airport, deicing pads are480 over 1,000 feet away from the nearest runway centerline. In addition, obstruction clearance requirements11 [Footnote 11: These include requirements contained in 14 CFR Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, and FAA Order 8260.3B, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS).] and runway protection zone (RPZ) clearance requirements place substantial limitations on the ability of airports to site d eicing pads near the ends of runways. Thus, ADF applied at designated deicing areas and deemed “available for discharge” is unlikely to ever reach the runway. Any ADF that inadvertently reaches the runway is a result of adhesion to the aircraft during appl ication and subsequent shearing off during takeoff. EPA deemed ADF that adheres to aircraft (as it is designed to do) as not “available for discharge” through its determination that only 80 percent of Type I and 10 percent of Type IV fluids is collectable. 12 [Footnote 12: EPA acknowledges that “Type IV fluid, an anti - icing chemical, is designed to adhere to the aircraft.” 74 Fed. Reg. at 44686. EPA mistakenly assumes states that Type I fluid is not designed to adhere to aircraft surfaces; however, that stat ement is incorrect. Type I fluid is also designed to have adhesive properties.] The inclusion of a new runway within the definition of a “new source” is most problematic for airports currently projected to fall within the 20 percent collection requirements . These airports are even more likely to be conducting deicing operations near terminal areas where vacuum trucks or similar technology would typically be employed to collect spent ADF. In these more typical situations, it is even more unlikely that pollut ants associated with deicing fluid would be discharged from the runway. For these reasons, a runway does not discharge pollutants associated with aircraft deicing operations and, therefore, does not meet the definition of a “source.” As such, EPA should no t include new runways within the definition of a “new source.” Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 7 A New Runway is Not “Subs tantially Independent” of an Existing Source. EPA determined that a new runway meets the criteria for a new source based on the reasoning that a new runway is “substantially independent of an existing source at the same site.” Airports are complex, integra ted systems of runways, taxiways, aprons, and gates. Any particular runway could have specified uses (e.g., arrivals only, cross wind runway, noise abatement) or be integrated within general operations. Each runway is not operated independently from other runway(s) at that airport. The deicing operations associated with aircraft departing from any particular runway are also not clearly distinguishable. This is particularly true when deicing operations are located near points of terminal area egress, as they typically are for airports currently projected to fall within the 20 percent collection requirements. Because both the runway and ongoing deicing operations are part of a wholly integrated airport system, a new runway cannot be considered “substantially i ndependent” of an existing source and does not meet the regulatory criteria for a “new source.” Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240 .1 - 8 A New Runway Will Not Necessarily Result in Additional Deicing Activity at the Airport EPA has falsely assumed that a new runway per se equates to additional traffic and, therefore, additional deicing481 fluid application and associated pollutant discharges. The addition of a runway can be undertaken for a number of reasons, many of which will not lead to increased traffic. Oftentimes, a runway is added or simply relocated to help improve the efficiency of an airport that has met or exceeded its ai r traffic capacity needs. In other words, the actual number of operations may not increase, but existing operations will run more efficiently. In fact, the improved efficiency of existing operations could result in a decreased use of deicing fluid as aircr aft are less delayed, and thus less likely to exceed their holdover times and require additional deicing. A runway may also be added for uses that have no relation to levels of aircraft deicing activity. For example, a runway may be added for use only by a rriving aircraft or in specific weather conditions. An excellent example of such a situation can be found at Boston - Logan International Airport, where recently - constructed Runway 14 - 32 was constructed to provide added capacity when high winds out of the we st are present at the airport. Such wind conditions occur almost exclusively in good weather situations when deicing does not occur. Another example is recently constructed Runway 10 - 28 at Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta International Airport, where the runway is used almost exclusively by arrivals, which have no need to be deiced. As these examples show, there is no nexus between new runways and deicing discharges. The number of runways is irrelevant to the amount of ADF applied at the airport and certainly wil l not result in an increase in pollutant discharges. Therefore, it is unreasonable to assume that the addition of a runway will cause an increase in deicing activity and related pollutant discharges. Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 9 The Proposed New Source Performance Standards Cannot Practically Be Applied to a New Runway As discussed above, EPA proposes to define new runways as “new sources” of ADF. The Proposed Rule goes on to state that new runways accordingly would be subject to NSPS, which require collection of 60 percent of applied ADF regardless of the annual amount of ADF that is used at the airport. At airports where less than 460,000 gallons of ADF is used annually, the NSPS would stand in stark contrast to the standards tha t would apply to existing runways. These “existing source performance standards” only require 20 percent of applied ADF that is used to be collected. As has already been stated, ADF use cannot be correlated with the number of runways at an airport. It is a lso not dependent on whether these runways are new or existing. However, even if a correlation could be established, the dual set of performance standards creates substantial compliance issues. We fail to see how compliance with these performance standards would be assessed. It is also unclear whether airport operators will be required to track which aircraft used new runways and which used existing runways. At many airports, this would create a substantial data collection burden on airport operators. The d ual set of performance standards also creates difficulties for airport operators in effectively managing deicing collection efforts to comply with the Proposed Rule. Deicing fluid collection systems

— such as deicing pads

— are not necessarily integral compone nts of runways. Deicing fluid collection may have taken place on airport aprons or at centralized deicing facilities where departures using new runways and existing runways would be comingled. Under such circumstances it would be impossible to differentiat e deicing fluid collected from new runway departures versus existing runway departures. Because of the impracticality of complying with dual performance standards, we believe the only practical way in which airports could comply with the Proposed Rule woul d be to collect 60 percent of all applied ADF at the airport, regardless of runway use and ADF usage, significantly increasing the costs and unrealistically portraying the feasibility of compliance associated with the Proposed Rule. If EPA retains its NSPS in their current form, these increased compliance costs must be considered. We fail to see how an airport could comply with different collection requirements for different departure runways. The deicing associated with aircraft using the new runway is unl ikely to be conducted under separate operations as that associated with existing482 runways. In fact, FAA specifically advises that an airport should follow one deicing procedure for all users in order to minimize confusion. Following one procedure will help “ensure the facility’s safety benefits can be achieved in an operationally efficient and cost - effective manner.”13 [Footnote 13: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300 - 14B, Design of Aircraft Deicing Facilities (2008).] The only way an airport could ensure complia nce with this requirement is to collect 60 percent of applied ADF at the entire airport. In order to ensure an airport is meeting the 60 percent collection requirements for departures associated with a new runway, the airport would have to collect 60 perce nt of all applied ADF. Otherwise, an airport may risk that an aircraft assigned to take off from an existing runway is deiced where only 20 percent collection requirements are met, but that aircraft is later assigned to take off from the new runway where 6 0 percent collection is now required. The only way an airport could practically ensure compliance with these separate collection standards would be to meet 60 percent collection at the entire airport. Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 12 Other Construction Activities Should Not Be Considered a New Source. In the Proposed Rule, EPA states that other construction activities could be considered a new source. EPA states that: it is possible that permit authorities, on a case - by - case basis, would be able to deem other types of construction activity for aircraft movement areas to constitute a new source as well. For example, a permit authority might deem the substantial improvement or replacement of an existing runway to be a new source if that activity is deemed to “totally replace the process or production equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants.”16 We disagree with any pos sible inclusion of such activities as a “new source.” Runway improvements and rehabilitations are routinely conducted as critical projects to maintain safe aircraft operations. These projects are generally significantly lower in cost than construction of a new runway. As such, the “barrier to entry” would be significantly higher. It is critical that the ability of an airport to maintain the integrity of existing runways, taxiways, and other infrastructure should not be hampered by the addition of potentiall y high costs associated with constructing and operating infrastructure necessary to meet additional ADF collection and treatment requirements. It should not be assumed that any construction activity at an airport will cause additional deicing discharges, o r that any construction activity affords the opportunity to undertake significant additional projects. In addition, the potential inclusion of other construction activities within the definition of a “new source” makes it impossible for airports to adequat ely predict the potential impact of the proposed NSPS on their future operations and costs. Giving great discretion to the permit writer to decide which projects trigger the NSPS is even more troublesome, as we will discuss later in these comments. If any capacity enhancement or other construction activity could increase the airport’s collection requirements to 60 percent, eventually all airports will be required to collect and treat 60 percent of applied ADF. EPA has not adequately analyzed the costs assoc iated with such a requirement, which would undoubtedly be cost prohibitive. Response: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) NSPS_OPPOSE - Oppose NSPS as new runway Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 19 (SLC Airpo rt)483 SLC believes this designation, which includes construction activities in the aircraft movement areas, needs clarification. As SLC designs a new terminal to increase efficiency of aircraft movement on the apron, it should not be considered a new source with potentially different collection requirements. The concept of varying collection rates at one airport is not feasible. At SLC, all collected ADF is pumped to the glycol storage lagoons and from there to the recycling plant located north of the airfie ld. With the current collection system it is impossible to differentiate the amount of ADF collected from a specific location. A new terminal at SLC will not result in an increase of ADF usage. New end - of - runway deicing pads are under construction due to t he new terminal design. The new deicing pads may increase ADF collection efficiency; the new terminal design will increase aircraft movement efficiency. EPA is incorrect to assume that construction projects will increase ADF usage and discharge amounts. R esponse: See response to 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn of ND), code NSPS_OPPOSE) OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1198 - 1 The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) would impose economically and scientifically unsound regulation that essentially bans the use of urea as an airport deicer. Considering that EPA cannot identify, and indeed solicits additional information on, the identity of deicer ingredients, the quantities in which they are used in current formulations (F ed. Reg. at 44709), and the potential environmental impacts associated with ingredients in deicer formulations, EPA’s removal of urea as a deicer appears to be completely arbitrary. The NPRM removes urea as an airfield deicer under the assumption that urea leaches large amounts of ammonia into waterways, yet EPA has no data on the proximity of airports to waterways. The toxicity of urea should be based on the actual fate, degradation, and transport of urea, as opposed to basing it off the assumption that it converts to ammonia, and all of this ammonia enters a water body. Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA's decision to base its BAT/NSPS discharge requirements for pavement deicing discharges on product substitution is not arbitrary. The CWA r equires EPA to establish discharge requirements (ELGs) based on the best available technology economically achievable. The data in EPA's record demonstrate that product substitution is a technologically available basis for NSPS and BAT, is not a barrier t o entry, and is economically achievable. Further, as an alternative to product substitution , the final rule includes an ammonia discharge limit if a facility elects not to substitute the use of urea for other less harmful airfield pavement deicers. See S ection VI of the preamble for EPA's rationale for its BAT and NSPS determinations. EPA also disagrees with the commenter that airports are not located in proximity to waterways. EPA has ample data in its record demonstrating that many airports are locate d near water bodies and are subject to NPDES discharge permits due to actual discharges into those water bodies. EPA also has data in the record that indicates a number of airports discharge deicing chemicals, including urea and ammonia, into water bodie s that are highly impaired. In the event that an airport is located a great distance from jurisdictional water bodies and has no possibility of a discharge to a water of the U.S., the final rule requirements would not apply. EPA's record contains toxico logical data, fate and effects data and established environmental risk assessment methods. EPA appropriately accounted for the toxicity of urea based on the actual fate, degradation and transfer of urea. When urea degrades in the environment it is the mo st toxic of all known484 runway deicers. Further, EPA did not assume urea converts to ammonia. Rather, EPA’s conclusion is based on data. The environmental toxicity data and risk information shows that urea degrades into highly toxic ammonia once in the en vironment. Urea is highly soluble in water, and biodegrades fairly rapidly to ammonia and bicarbonate. See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1210.1 excerpt number 5 in this comment code category. The toxicity loads generated by urea are far greater than an y other airport runway deicing alternative. See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1210.1 excerpt number 6 in this comment code category. In fact, current industry practices show that most airports have already switched to the less toxic alternatives, such as potassium acetate, because of the known high toxicity of urea as it degrades. EPA has determined that the use of potassium acetate, sodium acetate or sodium formate substitutes are economically achievable for the industry. The Agency has not found an y data showing that these alternatives are creating environmental problems in water bodies near airfields, even though it has investigated extensively, whereas the detrimental impacts of urea are well documented. Also see comment response EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0 038 - 1209 excerpt 2. OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1209 - 1 Aircraft and runway deicing is a crucial safety component to aircraft flights that are regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) would impose economically and scientifically unsound regulation that ess entially bans the use of urea as an airport deicer. Considering that EPA cannot identify, and indeed solicits additional information on, the identity of deicer ingredients, the quantities in which they are used in current formulations (Fed. Reg. at 44709), and the potential environmental impacts associated with ingredients in deicer formulations, EPA's removal of urea as a deicer appears to be completely arbitrary. Response: See response to 1198 Comment Excerpt # 1 in this comment code category. OPPOSE_ BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1209 - 2 The NPRM removes urea as an airfield deicer under the assumption that urea leaches large amounts of ammonia into waterways, yet EPA has no data on the proximity of airports to waterways. The toxicity of urea should be based on the actual fate, degradation, and transport of urea, as opposed to basing it off the assumption that it converts to ammonia, and all - of this ammonia enters a water body. Response: See response to 1198 Comment Exc erpt # 1 in this comment code category. OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1209 - 3 The economic impacts of removing urea as an airfield deicer would be detrimental to airports least capable of implementing a Best Availabl e Technology (BAT). EPA states "EPA believes these [large] airports will be less affected than smaller airports by compliance costs. . ." (Fed. Reg. at 44705). Smaller485 airports are typically in more rural, lower tax generating areas. This NPRM would furthe r increase airfare costs to the consumer or increasing local government appropriations to the airports in regions least capable of increasing such appropriations. Response: EPA does not agree with the speculation expressed in this comment. EPA determin ed its discharge restrictions for airfield pavement deicing are economically achievable for existing dischargers and do not pose a barrier to entry for new sources. See Section VI of the preamble for EPA's BAT/NSPS determination. This determination includ es an evaluation of impacts to small airports subject to the requirements as well. See Section VII of the final preamble for a discussion of EPA's economic impact methodology and results. The Agency acknowledges that smaller airports have fewer financial resources and less access to capital markets than do larger airports. However, EPA disagrees that the rule imposes inordinate economic burden on these airports. The Agency found 135 small and non - hubs are in - scope of the rule; of these small ai rports, 110 are not projected to incur costs for urea substitution. That is, over 80 percent of these smaller airports do not use urea for airfield deicing and have found it economically achievable. Among the 36 small and nonhubs projected to incur costs under the promulgated rule, only 8 non - Alaskan airports indicated that they receive subsidies from state, county, or city governments on the Airport Deicing Survey (a further 3 airports did not respond). Of these 36 small and non - hubs, 1 small hub is pro jected to incur costs exceeding 3 percent of operating revenues, and 6 small and non - hubs are projected to incur costs exceeding 1 percent but less than 3 percent of operating revenues. The status with respect to government subsidies of 3 of the non - hubs projected to incur costs projected to incur costs exceeding 1 percent but less than 3 percent of operating revenues is unknown; none of the other 4 airports impacted by the rule are among the 8 subsidized airports. Therefore it appears unlikely that the r ule will have significant impacts on government appropriations. Average annual total compliance costs are less than $0.25 per enplaned passenger for all except 5 small and non - hubs, and less than $0.50 per enplaned passenger for all except 1 small hub. T his suggests increased airfare costs to the consumer, if any, should be negligible. EPA therefore concludes that the rule is economically achievable for small and non - hub airports as well as large and medium hubs. OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1210.1 - 1 The NPRM does not adequately delineate or weigh the benefits of using urea as an airport deicer. Aircraft deicing is first and foremost a critical safety measure required and heavily regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Urea is a safe, effective and economical product regularly used to comply with these important federal safety mandates. Of the deicers examined by EPA in the Proposed Rule - acetate salts, formate salts, propylene glycol, ethylene gl ycol and urea

– only urea has a final OECD Screening Information Data Set (SIDS), and is also approved by EPA in the high production volume (HPV) data challenge. The SIDS dossier states that urea is of low concern for both human - health and ecological endpo ints, while recognizing the potential indirect ecological impacts from eutrophication.1 [FOOTNOTE: 1 OECD SIDS Urea (CAS No: 57 - 13 - 6), p.6.] In fact, the overall toxicity measures used by EPA and other international regulatory bodies would rate urea as low er toxicity than many of the chemicals not proposed to be effectively prohibited as a deicer based on the Proposed Rule’s Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT). 74 Fed. Reg. at 44,693. Unjustifiable and unnecessary regulation of urea coul d lead to airports using less effective and more environmentally -486 damaging deicing products, threatening the safety of airline passengers and the environment. Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA's decision to eliminate the use of urea as an a irfield deicer is based on sound science including, toxicological data, fate and effects data and established environmental risk assessment methods. The environmental toxicity data and risk information (EPA, 2009) shows that urea degrades into highly toxi c ammonia once in the environment. The toxicity loads generated by urea are far greater than any other airport runway deicing alternative. EPA has determined given information from industry and the FAA that alternative runway deicers provide ample runway and taxiway deicing capability to ensure aircraft operational safety given the experience of those airports already using such. See DCN ADO1252 for more information on airfield deicer efficacy. EPA has determined that the use of potassium acetate, sodium acetate or sodium formate substitutes are economically achievable for the industry, and EPA has not found any data that indicates that these alternatives are creating environmental problems in water bodies near airfields, whereas the detrimental impacts o f urea are well documented. Furthermore, many airports have already phased out the use of urea for better alternatives. EPA disagrees that the OECD SIDS and EPA HPV program data support the use of urea in deicing/anti icing. EPA believes the commenter m isinterpreted those programs’ data and use of their data. EPA focused on the direct application of urea to the environment, whereas both OECD SIDS and EPA HPV programs focus on the use of chemicals in manufacturing and their fate in the supply chain for c onsumers. The OECD SIDS focuses on the toxicity of urea based on occupational, dietary, and consumer product use exposure pathways, which are not relevant to airport deicing. In the case of airport deicing, the main exposure pathway of concern is urea runo ff into surface waters and leaching into groundwater. With respect to this type of exposure, the SIDS document supports EPA’s conclusions about urea’s environmental fate and transport, stating: **•** Urea is very soluble in water and tends to rapidly biodegrade into ammonia and bicarbonate. **•** Even though urea itself has low acute ecotoxicity to organisms, the degradation product, ammonia, is known to be toxic to all vertebrates. **•** High loading of urea to the land leads to long term effects to ecosystems, such as eut rophication, groundwater pollution, and soil acidification. Furthermore, EPA believes that the commenter misinterpreted EPA’s HPV Challenge Program. Under the HPV Challenge Program, companies are "challenged" to make health and environmental effects data publicly available on chemicals produced or imported in the United States in quantities of 1 million pounds or more per year. First of all, urea is not one of the HPV Challenge chemicals, (EPA believes that the commenter may have mistaken the chemicals N - (1 - Methylpropyl) urea or N - (4 - chlorophenyl) - N’ - (3,4 - dichlorophenyl)urea to be urea). Secondly, being a HPV Challenge chemical does not imply that the chemical is generally “approved” by EPA. For example, the HPV chemical list includes many chemicals wit h adverse human health and environmental effects at low levels, such as ethyl benzene. Also see response 1198 Comment Excerpt # 1 in this comment code category. References: EPA 2009. High Production Volume Information System. http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/hpvis/index.html OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1210.1 - 2487 TFI questions how a reasoned, scientifically valid policy decision can be ma de to restrict or limit the use of urea as an airfield deicer when EPA cannot identify, and indeed solicits additional information on, the identity of deicer ingredients and the quantities in which they are used in current formulations, as well requests in formation about potential environmental impacts associated with ingredients in deicer formulations. In addition, EPA apparently has no information as to whether the use of urea as a deicer at the specific airports that use it occur anywhere near a jurisdic tional water body. 74 Fed. Reg. at 44,709. Without this information (which EPA acknowledges in the NPRM it does not have), the Agency cannot expect to formulate meaningful regulations restricting the use of urea as an airfield deicer. Response: This comment repeats the same comment provided by the Michigan Agri - Business Association (MABA) and therefore the same response applies. (See comment number EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1198 - 1.) Additionally, by and large the overwhelming majority of airports p ossess NPDES permits, implying proximity to a jurisdictional water body. OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1210.1 - 3 The Proposed Rule’s focus on elimination of urea as an airfield deicer is arbitrary and capricious, as the environmental impacts of all potential deicer products are not considered and, therefore, insufficient justification is provided for the preferred BAT selection “of discontinuing use of urea - based pavement deicers in favor of alternative, less toxic pr oducts that are not harmful to aircraft.” 74 Fed. Reg. at 44,693. TFI therefore requests that EPA postpone selection of an airfield deicer BAT until such time as the Agency can accurately assess the toxicity of all potential deicer products. Response: S ee response to 1198 Comment Excerpt # 1 in this comment code category. OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1210.1 - 5 EPA has incorrectly focused on ammonia toxicity as a proxy for urea toxicity. Urea is highly soluble in water, and biodegrades fairly rapidly to ammonia and bicarbonate. Most of the ammonia will be in the form of ammonium, from which nitrogen is oxidized a s the result of bacterial action, forming nitrite and finally nitrate, typically within 24 hours. EPA assumptions on the fate and transport of urea, such as 100% runoff into surface waters and ammonia - only dissolution of urea, further bias the selection of the BAT. In the Technical Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (TDD), EPA states that: For stormwater discharges from airfield deicing operations, EPA focused on the continued use of urea. Urea breaks down into ammonia, and the resulting ammonia toxicity in receiving streams has helped to discourage urea use as an airfield deicing chemical in the past. Alternative airfield deicing chemicals that are less toxic than ammonia are avail able and are predominantly composed of a salt ion (potassium or sodium) and either acetate or formate. When inadequately treated, urea - contaminated wastewater also may contribute to nitrogen enrichment and eutrophication of receiving waters. EPA evaluated whether regulation of airfield deicing stormwater was practical or cost - effective. Since airfield deicing stormwater losses tend to occur over large areas and the volumes of dilute stormwater may be very high, at this time, EPA could not identify an “econo mically achievable” means to regulate airfield deicing stormwater other than to encourage a488 complete transition away from urea use. (emphasis added). In selecting the pollutants of concern, EPA further states in the TDD that “[a]mmonia as N is proposed fo r regulation to ensure that airports cease using urea as an airfield deicer, since other less toxic products are available.” No justification is provided for selecting ammonia over nitrate/nitrite or Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) as the appropriate pollut ant monitoring parameter for urea. Further, data from stormwater sampling used by EPA in the TDD shows relatively low concentrations of ammonia levels (ND

– 0.79 mg/L with one outlier of 59.6 mg/L for a sample collected at RFD Airport) relative to other po llutants of potential concern. No pollutants of concern for other potential airfield deicers

– acetate or formate salts, for example

– were analyzed in selecting pollutants of concern. TFI requests that EPA postpone selection of an airfield deicer BAT unti l such time as the Agency collects data on the presence and concentrations of all airfield deicers. TFI also requests that EPA re - examine the selection of ammonia as the appropriate monitoring endpoint, given what scientifically available data on the full fate and transport of urea in the environment (as discussed above). Response: EPA's focus on ammonia toxicity as a primary impact on the environment from the use of urea as a runway anti/deicing compound is highly appropriate when the complete decomposi tion process of urea in an aquatic environment is taken into consideration. Once in aqueous environments, urea will degrade into ammonium (NH4) and bicarbonate, as the commenter points out, but will then continue to degrade into ammonia (NH3). The speed and proportion of the by - products formed are dependent upon the temperature and pH of the receiving waters. The higher the temperature and the pH of an aquatic environment, the more ammonia will be formed. The urea degradation reaction is shown by: H2NCON 2H (urea) + 2H2O => 2NH4 + HCO3 NH4+ => NH3 (g) H+ Eventually, most urea will decompose into ammonia before it can further oxidize into nitrate. Regardless of the proportion of the initial by - products and the timing of the formation of each, the presence of ammonia in a waterbody exerts a direct toxic effect on aquatic life at very low levels. Recently, extensive research and data generated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Geological Survey and others, has shown that ammonia in water bodies is more toxic than previously thought. This has led EPA to propose a revised National Recommended Water Quality Criterion for Ammonia. This new criteria was proposed by EPA in December 2009 (74 FR 69086). Data supporting this revised criteria indicates th at ammonia is approximately two to four times more toxic to aquatic life than previously thought. It has also been shown that species of aquatic mussels, including endangered and threatened species of mussels protected under the Endangered Species Act, wh ich are ubiquitous in water bodies across the U.S., are the most sensitive to ammonia toxicity in aquatic ecosystems. In addition to the well - documented toxicity of ammonia in aquatic ecosystems, the degradation of urea into both ammonium and ammonia cons umes oxygen. Where discharges of urea have gotten into a waterbody, once the decomposition process starts, the depletion of oxygen in the waterbody can lead to fish kills. For these reasons, EPA believes it is highly appropriate to be concerned about amm onia toxicity from the use of urea as a runway deicing/anti icing chemical. With respect to the comment about the samples taken at RFD airport (Rockford, IL), EPA took those samples to determine the removal efficiency of the stormwater ponds with regards to aircraft deicing materials, and these samples contained significant amounts of aircraft deicing stormwater, thus diluting any potential ammonia in the samples. Had EPA been attempting to document the ammonia concentrations at this airport, we would hav e taken our samples that were more representative of these discharges. Moreover, ammonia is the more toxic pollutant associated with urea. Setting limits for TKN, nitrate or nitrite would be limiting surrogates, when appropriate sampling data are availab le for the pollutant of more concern. Additionally, TKN and nitrate/nitrite are likely more ubiquitous than ammonia, therefore limiting ammonia will likely result in fewer false detections. Also, see Section 6 in489 the TDD for a discussion on how EPA selec ted pollutants for regulation. EPA did look at the pollutants of concern in the other types of airfield deicers. See EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1210.1

– 6. See also response to 1198 Comment Excerpt # 1 in this comment code category. OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammo nia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1210.1 - 6 Neither the TDD nor the Preliminary Data Summary Airport Deicing Operations provide sufficient toxicity data to support a BAT of eliminating urea as a deicer. In fact, toxicity data presented for urea in the Preliminary Data Summary Airport Deicing Operations show that urea is equally, if not less, toxic than ethylene glycol, potassium acetate, calcium magnesium acetate, sodium acetate or sodium formate(need a response to this).5 Urea can only be elimin ated as a deicer when unionized ammonia toxicity data is substituted. However, no information or toxicity data is provided on the breakdown products of the other airfield deicers. No data or review of scientific studies regarding the toxicity to aquatic o rganisms of alternative pavement deicers is provided in the TDD or other technical supporting documents in the docket for the Deicer Rule. In addition, a risk based metric is not employed to justify the decision to remove urea as an allowable deicer. Recen t studies indicate that acetate and formate salts are an environmental concern to aquatic organisms. One recent study shows that concentrations of airfield pavement deicer materials often exceeded levels of concern regarding aquatic toxicity. 6 [FOOTNOTE: Corsi SR, Geis SW, Bowman G, Failey GG, and Rutter TD. Aquatic Toxicity of Airfield - Pavement Deicer Materials and Implications for Airport Runoff. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009. Vol 43, pp. 40

– 46.] Results indicated that toxicity is driven by the freezing - point depressants in all tests except the Vibrio fisheri test for sodium formate, which is influenced by an additive. Further, sampling data indicated that 40% of acetate and formate salts samples had concentrations greater than the aquatic - life benchmark, equal to the 41% of samples exceeding the EPA 1 - hour water - quality criterion for ammonia, and that 68% of samples collected in the receiving stream exceeded the 1 - hour water - quality criterion for chloride. TFI requests that EPA postpone selection of an ai rfield deicer BAT until such time as the Agency can accurately assess the toxicity of all potential deicer products and select a justifiable BAT. Response: Although urea itself is either equally or less toxic than alternative airfield deicers (e.g., ethylene glycol, potassium acetate, sodium acetate or sodium formate) it is well documented that once in surface waters, urea will degrade into ammonia which is extremely toxic to aquatic life. Concern over the increased toxicity from ammonia is one of th e primary reasons many airports have phased out the use of urea for less toxic alternative airfield deicers. EPA disagrees that urea can only be eliminated as a deicer based on the toxicity of ammonia. In addition to toxicity concerns, the degradation of urea also exerts a large biological oxygen demand (BOD) and contributes to total nitrogen loads within surface waters. The BOD associated with urea (1.8 O 2 /g urea) is almost twice the demand associated with the alternative airfield deicers which range fr om 0.3 to 1 O 2 /g product. EPA has also documented cases where urea from airfield deicing has contributed to total nitrogen concerns in surface waters that resulted in eutrophication. For these reasons, EPA believes it is highly appropriate to be concerned about use of urea, one of the most toxic deicers, as an airfield deicer over alternative airfield deicers and is justified in its decision to base the rule on product substitution of non - urea deicers without implementing a risk - based metric. EPA did not identify any field studies that included measured levels of the alternative airfield deicers associated with documented environmental impacts. The limited field data available on the environmental impacts from airfield deicing has focused on urea deicers b ecause of its dominance in the market prior to490 the mid - 1990s (Corsi, 2008; see DCN 01243). EPA has collected and presented available laboratory toxicity data on the alternative airfield deicers and included a discussion of the fate and transport of the deg radation products in the final rule environmental assessment document, Environmental Impact and Benefit Assessment for the Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (EPA Document Number 821 - R - 12 - 003). Although the Corsi study demonstrates that the use of acetate - and formate - based deicers may result in elevated toxicity levels and environmental impacts similar to urea - based deicers, Corsi cautions against using the results to draw broad conclusions about the genera l toxicities of the acetate - and formate - based deicers in the environment (DCN 01243). Corsi acknowledges the limitations of the study (e.g., only evaluated discharges from one airport, assessed impacts to only three organisms, only documented impacts in b ench scale test) and emphasizes the need for more field studies to better understand the toxic potential of acetate - and formate - based deicers in the environment. For the industry, it is not technically feasible to eliminate all airfield deicing compounds. EPA is basing the rule on the use of non - urea deicers given the environmental impacts of urea and is committed to continuing to gather information on the alternative airfield deicers as studies become available. Also, see response to 1198 Comment Excer pt # 1 in this comment code category. OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1210.1 - 7 EPA proposes a biased standard in the NPRM, whereby the AFB BAT for airplane deicing fluid needs only meet a COD limit while discharging a mmonia, while the pavement deicing BAT must either eliminate urea as an ammonia source or meet an ammonia discharge limit that is, by the EPA’s own admission, prohibitive and burdensome. Response: EPA found that the Best Available Technology Economicall y Achievable for reducing pollutant loadings from airfield deicers was product substitution. Instead of imposing a ban of the chemical, EPA attempted to allow flexibility for potentially unseen emergencies where urea would be necessary for safety reasons , and as such allowed a capture and treat alternative. EPA fully expects that most or all airports will comply with the BAT requirements by substituting their urea for alternative deicing materials. Ammonia (a surrogate for urea) and COD were identified as the regulated pollutants. See section 6 of the TDD for a detailed explanation. Urea is not associated with ADF. However, anaerobic treatment systems will create ammonia as a byproduct of treatment. As such, EPA did not want to penalize an airport f or treating their ADF with the BAT technology by requiring additional treatment. For a discussion of EPA's rationale, see section VI.C.2 of the final rule preamble. OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1210.1 - 8 The Propos ed Rule imposes unnecessarily rigid BAT requirements relating to urea use. The Proposed Rule would require certification that the airport does not use urea - based deicers or, in the alternative, require airports to install treatment to eliminate urea - based ammonia discharges and verify the effectiveness of the treatment through outfall monitoring. 74 Fed. Reg. at 44,693. EPA acknowledged in the NPRM that it evaluated only two BAT options for urea, and that the cost of the alternative treat - and monitor approa ch would likely be “prohibitively high,” and effectively prohibit the use of urea as a deicer. Id. This effective prohibition would apply to all facilities, without adequate scientific justification,491 even though airports operating under the federal and sta te for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (the “MSGP”) are already required to evaluate whether the particular airport can cost - effectively use an alternative deicer to urea. See MSGP Section 8.S.3.1. As the MSGP already requires a facility - specific evaluation of whether an alternative is viable, EPA should defer to these facility - specific determinations required by EPA’s own water quality permit and not proceed to impose a one - size - fits - all approach to selection of appropriate safe ty measures for deicing aircraft and runways and allow use of urea for those facilities, so long as the facility complies with reasonable numeric limits on ammonia concentrations in discharges. Response: See response to comment 1198 excerpt #1 in this comment code category. Also, the CWA establishes two prongs for development of discharge requirements: one is technology - based and one is water quality based. ELGs establish the minimum discharge requirements based on an evaluation of best available tec hnology, economically achievable (BAT). Permitting authorities may establish more restrictive requirements based on water quality considerations of the specific waterbody receiving the discharges. Similarly, the CWA establishes different factors to consi der when establishing technology - based requirements and water quality - based requirements. It is also important to note that under the CWA, a permitting authority should evaluate both technology - based and water quality - based requirements (if necessary) and then apply the most stringent. In some cases that may be the water quality - based requirement and in others it will be the technology - based requirement. EPA disagrees with the commenter that federal and state MSGPs for Stormwater Discharges Associated wi th Industrial Activities (the “MSGP”) require evaluation of whether the particular airport can cost effectively use an alternative deicer to urea. The federal MSGP requires minimizing the use of urea, where feasible, but does not require a cost - effectivene ss analysis. Thus, there is no inconsistency between today’s final rule and the MSGP. MSGP, Section 8, Subpart S, Air Transportation (8.S.3.1.6), states that facilities should: Minimize, and where feasible eliminate, the use of urea and glycol - based dei cing chemicals, in order to reduce the aggregate amount of deicing chemicals used and/or lessen the environmental impact. Chemical options to replace ethylene glycol, propylene glycol and urea include: potassium acetate; magnesium acetate; calcium acetate; and anhydrous sodium acetate. References: EPA. Multi - Sector General Permit (2008). http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/msgp2008_finalpermit.pdf OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 17 The banning of urea will not necessarily reduce the COD load. In many weather situations that ANC experiences, the use of urea has less of an impact than KAC. KAC must be applied on a more frequent basis to maintain the s ame level of deicing that urea delivers. There is no analysis that the amount used is different in EPA's calculations. Did EPA's cost estimates include the indirect costs for additional airport closures? Response: See response to comment 1198 excerpt # 1 in this comment code category. Note that no airports are projected to close as a result of today's requirements.492 Additionally, KAC has substantially less oxygen demand upon breakdown as compared to urea, see Section 9.3 of the TDD for details on the CO D loadings associated with the product substitution requirement. Despite claims to the contrary, all data in the record demonstrate that KAC is a more effective deicer than urea. EPA has no basis to assume that KAC would require more frequent application than a deicer containing urea. See DCN ADO1252 for more information on airfield deicer efficacy. Also see comment responses for EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 excerpt 17 and EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 excerpt 48. OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 22 There are studies and tests that show that potassium acetate increases the wear and oxidation of the newer carbon fiber brakes on aircraft. Has EPA taken into account the cost and safety affect on new aircraf t brakes associated with the total ban on urea would have? Response: Currently potassium acetate is the most widely used airfield deicing chemical in the U.S. As a result, clearly potassium acetate is determined to be safe and its affect and or/cost on aircraft, if present, acceptable. Additionally, while EPA used potassium acetate as the basis for BAT/NSPS, an airport may elect to use any airfield chemical provided they either do not contain urea, or meet the ammonia numeric limitation. However, in t he event that an airline has specific concerns over potassium acetate, today’s final rule does not require the use of potassium acetate. It simply requires certification that the deicer does not contain urea. Finally, in the unlikely event that a facil ity wants to continue to use urea containing deicers for any reason, the current regulation have a provision that will allow for the use of urea as long as it is collected and treated to a numeric effluent limit prior to discharge. Also see response to c ode FAA_CONFLICT, #1201.1 #1, and response to L_REMOVE_RULE, 1226.1 #6. OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1 - 4 Airports may limit use of urea to decrease discharges: this provision would reduce the frequency of the use of surface deicing and clearly increase the likelihood of runway excursions. Response: EPA does not agree with the speculation that the substitution of runway deicing chemicals away from urea will lead to a decrease in runway deicing and therefore an increase in runway excursions. Alternative, less toxic runway deicers are available that achieve effective and safe runway deicing. Many airports are already using these and no increases in excursions or reductions in safety have been documented. In co ntrast, EPA notes that this commenter did not provide any data to support its assertion.4 93 OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1221.1 - 7 According to EPA, one of the main reasons for the use of urea is its low cost compared to other products. What the EPA does not acknowledge is the ease of use and storage that urea provides, particularly at airports in Alaska where transportation and stora ge of pavement deicers is an issue. Urea is a product that is able to be stored in dry form in bags that are transported to airports and stored in large quantity for the deicing season. Once the urea is needed, it is then mixed with water to create the pr oper deicing mixture. Alternately, other pavement deicers are shipped and stored in their liquid form, necessitating the need to store larger quantities of liquid product for a comparable amount of deicing. As EPA states, urea has already been replaced wit h other deicing products and is not widely used. Where urea does provide benefit is as a "backup" pavement deicer for when other products are not available or able to be transported to airports, particularly in arctic areas. If the airports run out of pav ement deicers, urea can be easily shipped in and stored on site. Airports in the arctic are a vital part of the community and in many cases are the only transportation available during winter months to ship in supplies, including food, medicines, and mail. Closing down these airports is not an option. Proposed Alternative: In the State of Alaska urea should be allowed as a "backup" or severe weather alternative for pavement deicing to ensure vital airport operations are not impacted by lack of liquid pavem ent deicers. Response: EPA included, in today’s compliance costs, storage costs for airports to switch to potassium acetate. See section 10 of the TDD for more information on those costs. Additionally, an airport may elect to use urea as long as the chemicals are collected and treated to meet the numeric effluent limit prior to discharge. Moreover, while EPA selected KAC (a liquid airfield deicer) as the basis for BAT, there are multiple dry airfield deicers available that do not contain urea which a n airport may use as a primary or back - up deicer which should alleviate the liquid storage issue that the commenter references. Also see comment responses for EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 excerpt 17 and EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 excerpt 48. OPPOSE_BAN - O ppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1225.1 - 2 In a few locations, ADOT&PF is currently using some E36 (potassium acetate) in combination with urea. We prefer mechanical methods for runway deicing, although due to the extreme cold and win d, urea has been found to be a useful anti - icing tool for the Barrow and Deadhorse airports, keeping sand from blowing off the runway surface. During some conditions, E - 36 (potassium acetate) can also be utilized, although its effectiveness is limited by a rctic temperatures. Response: EPA has not found any data to support the claims that urea is a more effective deicer at low temperatures, despite repeated requests to the industry to provide data to support such claims. In fact EPA found contrary data to documenting KAC as the more effective deicing chemical. See DCN ADO1252 for detail on airfield deicer efficacy. Also see comment responses for EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 excerpt 17 and EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 excerpt 48.494 OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1225.1 - 4 The Federal Aviation Administration has invested large sums in building urea processing plants at ADOT&PF airports. These include an overhead crane to lift one - ton nags of urea, piping, mixing tank s and storage tanks. If urea is banned from use, these federal capital investments wil1 have been a waste. And due to uncertainty of supplies, in some cases, ADOT&PF airports have purchased advance supplies of urea, as it is easier to store than liquid dei cer. In one ease, we currently hold eight year's supply of urea. Response: EPA's estimated the annual costs for all affected airports to purchase non - urea - containing pavement deicers. See DCN AD01252. The economic analysis demonstrated that these costs are economically achievable. Furthermore, as the proposed rule was published in 2009, airports have since had the opportunity to use up their excess urea. Lastly, the rule includes a compliance alternative that allows an airport to use urea, if it so cho oses. OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 45 The proposed rule has a blanket restriction on certain types of pavement deicing products, stating that "any discharger subject to this Part must certify that it does no t use airfield deicing products that contain urea" unless the airport can meet the numeric standards set forth in the compliance alternative See Proposed Section 40 C.F.R. § 449.10(c), (d). However, the alternative numeric limit is not a realistic alternat ive. The preamble notes that "airports discharge airfield pavement deicing chemicals without treatment due to the difficulty and expense required in collecting and treating the large volumes of contaminated stormwater generated on paved airfield surfaces." 74 Fed. Reg. at 44691. The "variability of storm events and drainage systems make it difficult to estimate flows or concentrations of pavement deicing waste streams generated at an airport." Id. at 44686. Hence, "collecting and analyzing samples of airfie ld runoff would . . . present significant practical difficulties. Measuring ammonia discharges from airfield pavement is generally difficult due to the design of airport drainage systems." Id. at 44693. "Therefore, as a practical matter, a permittee who wa nted to take samples and demonstrate compliance with a numeric limit for ammonia would need to show that the ammonia limit is met for all deicing runoff, not just airfield discharges." Id. Thus, the "flexibility" the EPA believes that the numeric limit off ers is illusory at best. Response: See response to Tech Forcing EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 164 (ATA). OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 47 As the EPA's data indicates in Table 6 - 1., of the TDD, almost 11 pe rcent of airports use this substance. A large number of smaller airports use urea - based pavement deicing. Of all the airside urea in use, most is applied at nonhub airports. Urea - based runway deicer is designed for airport runway applications where operati ng temperatures are extremely low. Thus, the EPA must consider the relative effectiveness of urea based deicer over other alternatives that are not nearly as effective. Moreover, such alternatives are more expensive, causing an inordinate impact on smaller airports. To simply change to another material, for495 some, may not be economically achievable. Furthermore, potassium acetate manufacturers have kept prices at or above that which they were during the 08 - 09 winter season. This price escalation was at the t ime purported to be driven by striking workers in the pot - ash mines. This means current prices are 3 times what they were in 2007 - 2008. Response: EPA evaluated the economic achievability of the product substitution and determined that it was achievable by the industry, see the preamble for more details on the economic tests conducted by EPA. Also, see the response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1225.1 excerpt 2. This commenter did not provide any data to support the assertion that other deic ers are less effective at low temps. As explained in response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1225.1 excerpt 2. EPA has data which show other deicers are in fact more effective at low temperatures. Additionally, EPA selects a baseline timeframe by which to base long term cost models (2002 - 2005 in the case of this regulation). The decrease in prices during the 2008 - 2009 deicing season was not captured in this baseline. Also see DCN ADO1252 for detail on airfield deicer efficacy and product substitution costing. OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 48 One particular Alaskan airport commented that they use urea “when it is still raining, but freezing at night. Liquid deicer is washed from the pavement quite rapidly during ra in events and we will generally have rain while the surface temperature is below freezing, this can occur for as long as 3 weeks in the fall and may reoccur in the spring. Urea has a hold over time that is un - equaled by any product on the market. That is t he length of time that it will continue to be effective before another application is required.” They go on to estimate that their particular airport would need as many as four applications of liquid deicer to equal the benefit realized from one applicatio n of urea. The costing of this is depicted below: One application of Urea @ $343 per ton = $1,763.00 One application of Potassium Acetate @ $11.00 per gal = $16,515.00 Estimated 4 applications of Potassium Acetate @ $11.00 per gallon = $66,060 Many airport s have realized a significant cost savings of urea over potassium acetate. The above airport scenario also means much less of the product is also used. In turn, the EPA must consider that there are a limited number of alternative options as the FAA require s that airports use only products that meet or exceed Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) or military specifications. The FAA prescribes a list of chemicals that are approved for the snow and ice control of airfield pavements, which limits options of che micals being used as pavement deicing products. Several factors have prevented or inhibited the development and use of alternative pavement deicing/anti - icing agents including: (1) concerns about the possible impact of potassium acetate on electrical syste ms and other aircraft components (including brakes), (2) increased cost of alternate agents, and (3) greater efficiency of urea. Response: The finding that urea degrades into ammonia is based on sound science including, toxicological data, fate and eff ects data and long established environmental risk assessment methods. The environmental toxicity data and risk information clearly shows that urea degrades into highly toxic ammonia once in the environment. The toxicity loads generated by urea are far gr eater than any other airport runway deicing alternative. EPA’s analysis of pollutants loading reductions associated with alternative deicers to urea is not based on application at specific temperatures, and while EPA acknowledges that a variety of factors may affect the496 efficiency in which a chemical melts ice at an airport, temperature is but a single factor. As EPA was unable to quantify all potential factors that may affect the relative effectiveness of a chemical, the agency used, when available, manu facturer data on application rates, and when unavailable, EPA calculated the application rate based on available data. Additionally, EPA did not find any data indicating, that urea was more efficient than acetate in any weather condition or had increased holdover times. While commenters opposed EPA's assumptions on urea effectiveness, no data was supplied to oppose the analyses that EPA relied on. EPA has determined that the use of potassium acetate, sodium acetate or sodium formate substitutes are economically achievable for the industry, and EPA has no data indicating that these alternatives are creating environmental problems in water bodies near airfields, whereas the detrimental impacts of urea are well documented. Furthermore, most airpor ts in the U.S. have already phased out the use of urea for these better alternatives. EPA is not aware of any issues associated with an airport identifying chemicals other than urea for airfield deicing, as the majority of the industry does not use these materials. Furthermore, FAA did not raise this issue at any time during this rulemaking. Also see response to code FAA_CONFLICT, 1201.1 #1. Also see the responses to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1225.1 excerpt 2 and comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 excerpt 22 ; and DCN ADO1252 for detail on airfield deicer efficacy. OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 49 An immediate and compete ban on urea - based pavement deicer would have an inordinate impact on smaller northern airports that currently utilize this product. The EPA must provide an exemption for airports that can demonstrate the need for continued use and/or lack of alternatives. Response: EPA's decision to base the BAT/NSPS discharge requirements for airfield d eicing discharges on product substitution of urea makes sense and is supported in the record. The CWA requires EPA to establish discharge requirements (ELGs) based on the best available technology economically achievable. The data in EPA's record demonst rates that product substitution for urea is BAT and that it is economically achievable. This is evidenced by the fact that many airports have already switched to less toxic alternatives. See DCN ADO1252 for details on EPA’s costing for product substitu tion. Also see the Economic Analysis for details on economic achievability, in particular section 5.5 regarding impacts on airports in Alaska. Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport incurs projected compliance costs that are 0.8 percent of its total operating revenues, while Fairbanks International Airport incurs projected compliance costs that are 1.9 percent of total operating revenues. The costs of the rule to the State of Alaska for its Rural Airport System (which lose money every year) is proje cted to be 0.26 percent of the State’s contribution to airport operations. Also see the responses to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1225.1 excerpt 2 and comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 excerpt 22.497 OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 003 8 - 1239.1 - 15 Page 44690, Section VII.D.2. It does not make sense to use ammonia as a pollutant of concern for airfield deicers as the use of urea is very limited and will soon be eliminated. As stated in the report, only 11% of airports use urea. An eval uation of the pollutants of concern for potassium acetate, sodium acetate, and sodium formate needs to be conducted to determine the appropriate and/or additional parameters of concern for airfield deicing wastewater. Response: EPA's decision to base th e rule on elimination of urea as an airfield deicer because it degrades into ammonia is based on sound science including, toxicological data, fate and effects data and long establish environmental risk assessment methods. The environmental toxicity data a nd risk information clearly shows that urea degrades into highly toxic ammonia once in the environment. The toxicity loads generated by urea are far greater than any other airport runway deicing alternative. EPA has determined that the use of potassium a cetate, sodium acetate or sodium formate substitutes are economically achievable for the industry, and EPA has no data indicating that these alternatives are creating environmental problems in water bodies near airfields, whereas the detrimental impacts of urea are well documented. Furthermore, many airports have already phased out the use of urea for better alternatives. Based on current data, urea is the pollutant of greatest concern in airfield deicers and it is within EPA’s discretion to address only urea in this ELG. EPA does not currently have sufficient data on the other types of airfield deicers and the technologies (including product substitution) that could control their level of discharge to the waters -- on which to establish further limitatio ns in the rule on additional types of airfield deicers. Also see response to See response to 1198 Comment Excerpt # 1 and 1210.1 Excerpt #6 in this comment code category. OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 41 P age 6 - 2, Table 6 - 2. It does not make sense to only regulate the use of urea as an airfield deicing chemical when it only accounted for 12% of the usage (even less today). Potassium Acetate accounts for 63% of airfield deicing chemical usage and this should be the chemical that is evaluated and controlled under the ELG. Response: As explained in the preamble to the final rule, the Agency did not identify an available economically achievable technology to collect and treat wastewater containing pavement de icing pollutants. This statement is accurate irrespective of the pavement deicer applied. Rather, EPA identified product substitution as the basis for BAT/NSPS discharge requirements for airfield deicing discharges. EPA's decision to base its BAT/NSPS d ischarge requirements for airfield deicing discharges on product substitution makes sense. The CWA requires EPA to establish discharge requirements (ELGs) based on the best available technology economically achievable. The data in EPA's record demonstrat e that product substitution for urea is BAT and that it is economically achievable. This is evidenced by the fact498 that many airports have already switched to less toxic alternatives. EPA's record contains toxicological data and fate and effects data on urea and the other runway deicing chemicals that are available. The environmental toxicity data and risk information clearly shows that urea degrades into highly toxic ammonia once in the environment. The toxicity loads generated by urea are far greater than any other airport runway deicing alternative. EPA has determined that the use of potassium acetate, sodium acetate or sodium formate substitutes are economically achievable for the industry, and EPA has no data indicating that these alternatives are creating environmental problems in water bodies near airfields, whereas the detrimental impacts of urea are well documented. Also see responses to 1210.1 excerpt #6 and EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1

– 15 in this comment code category. OPPOSE_BAN - Oppose a mmonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 16 Winter temperatures in Salt Lake City range from an average minimum of 21° F to 41° F and are ideal for urea use. Other non - urea based deicing chemicals are more effective in colder temperatures ra nging from 0° F to 14° F. SLC uses a combination of potassium acetate and sodium acetate when temperatures are below normal range, but prefers to use urea during normal winter temperatures. Cost for pavement deicers vary based on availability, location and supply. Locally, urea is readily available, unlike other chemicals such as potassium acetate which experienced a recent supply shortage due to a mining strike. Urea is also less expensive compared to potassium acetate and other pavement deicers. The cost per ton for urea is $440.00 versus liquid potassium acetate $5.84/gallon or approximately $1,500.00/liquid ton and solid sodium acetate at $2,200/ton. For many reasons, SLC would prefer to continue using urea as an option for pavement deicing, however, SLC is unable to meet the proposed daily ammonia limit of 17 mg/L at its storm water collection points. Response: The commenter notes that it prefers to use urea over alternative chemicals in some instances and that urea costs them less than alternative chemicals. However, the commenter did not say that alternative chemicals may not be used. EPA does not make BAT determinations based on preference, but rather based on technologies that are technologically available and economically achievable. The data in EPA's record demonstrate that product substitution for urea is BAT and that it is economically achievable. See Section V.B.1 of the preamble for additional discussion of EPA’s BAT determination for airfield pavement deicing discharges. Additionally, non - urea based deicers are used across the country, by a variety of sizes of airports, demonstrating availability of substitute products and demonstrating that there is no general “need” for continued use of urea. Also see the responses to comments EPA - H Q - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 excerpt 47 and EPA - HQ - OW 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 excerpt 48. OPPOSE_COD - Oppose COD as regulated pollutant Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 156499 The Distinction Between BOD and COD Is Not Merely Technical But Legal Reflecting Congress’ Mandate that EPA Evaluate and Address Distinct Environmental Concerns Under the ELG Program COD and BOD measure very different types of oxygen demand. On one hand, “ BOD is an estimate of the oxygen - consuming requirements of organic matter decomposition under aerobic conditions” and “is determined by measuring the depletion of dissolved oxygen resulting from aerobic microbial activity . . . during incubation at 20 degr ees celsius over a fixed period of time.”412 [FOOTNOTE:412 Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category, at 7 - 6 to 7 - 7.] In contrast, COD “is the measure, using a strong oxidizing agent in an acidic medium, of the oxygen equivalent of the oxidizable organic matter present.”413 [FOOTNOTE:413 Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Pr oducts Point Source Category, at 7 - 7.] COD is almost always higher than BOD precisely because it measures the oxygen demand of pollutants that are not readily metabolized by biological organisms. However, the distinction between BOD and COD is not merely t echnical. In Section 304(b)(4) of the CWA, Congress required EPA to identify “conventional pollutants,” expressly including “biological oxygen demanding” pollutants. When it considered whether to list COD as a conventional pollutant, the Agency cogently hi ghlighted the specific concerns animating Congress’ mandate: Based on its assessment of the Clean Water Act and its legislative history, EPA concluded that conventional pollutants include substances which, among other things, may be biodegradable or oxygen demanding. The Agency believes this reflects Congress’ concern for the traditional problem of degradation of the dissolved oxygen available to biota.414 Thus, EPA recognizes the need to adhere to Congress’ explicit direction to distinguish carefully betwe en conventional and non conventional pollutants in part to ensure the “traditional problem” posed by biological oxygen demand is appropriately addressed. Indeed, EPA based its decision not to list COD as a conventional pollutant and to instead treat COD “a s a ‘non - conventional, non - toxic’ pollutant” precisely on the grounds that COD measures “substances” that are not relevant to Congress’ specific and unequivocal concern about biological oxygen demand: COD is a parameter which measures a range of substances that are oxygen demanding. Although certain fractions of the materials measured by COD do deplete oxygen available to aquatic organisms, other fractions, identifiable as oxygen demanding under certain conditions of temperature and pH, do not as a practica l matter deplete oxygen available to organisms. Therefore, the Agnecy does not believe that it would be appropriate to identity [COD] as a conventional pollutant . . . 415 Congress emphasized the significance of the distinction between conventional and non - conventional

– and so, between BOD and COD

– and the need to appropriately address the concerns posed by each, when it carefully distinguished between BCT and BAT and provided for substantially different cost effectiveness tests that must be applied for d etermining each. As stated above, the Agency’s failure to evaluate BCT is an independent violation of the CWA. In some sense it follows from and compounds the failure to designate BOD rather than COD as the “regulated pollutant” in accordance with the stat ute. In short, the question of whether BOD or COD should be designated as the “regulated pollutant” in this rulemaking is one that must be resolved carefully as the resolution of the issue has significant, Congressionally - mandated consequences. Response: See section V.B (BAT discussion) of the final rule preamble and the BPT essay in comment code L_BPT/BCT. OPPOSE_COD - Oppose COD as regulated pollutant Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 157 EPA’s Selection of a Biological Treatment System as BAT Establishes that Chemical Oxygen Demand Cannot Be the Regulated Pollutant BOD and COD are closely related, but this is not a reason to blur the distinction between the two pollutants. Most prominently, both BOD and COD are measures of the500 “oxygen deman d” of pollutants

– that is, the amount of oxygen in water consumed as pollutants break down. In addition, though they are both pollutants under the CWA in their own right, BOD and COD are most appropriately conceived as “indicator pollutants,” or pollutant s that stand for or measure the presence of other pollutants. EPA often selects BOD and/or COD as regulated pollutants for precisely this reason and we do not challenge the legality of or object to this practice. We do not challenge the proposition that CO D may be an “indicator” of the presence of substances directly associated with aircraft deicing operations. While we do disagree with EPA’s assertion that COD is a “better” indicator of such substances than BOD, here we contend that even if COD could be co nsidered a better indicator pollutant it does not resolve the question of which pollutant the Agency is in fact regulating. The critical determination for regulation is not whether oxygen demand can be (or is “best”) measured using COD or BOD. Indeed, the Agency has conceded that the oxygen demand it is controlling here can be measured using either BOD or COD. In contrast to other contexts in which it has stated it is not possible,416 EPA has determined that a reliable COD/BOD ratio can be established: [FOO TNOTE:416 EPA often has emphasized that such ratios often are source (plant) specific. See Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category at 5 - 9 (February 28, 1995) : The COD test cannot be substituted directly for the BOD5 test because the COD/ BOD5 ratio is extremely variable and dependent on the specific chemical constituents in the wastewater. In addition, the COD test measures refractory organics, which the BOD5 test does not. A COD/ BOD5 ratio for the wastewater from a single manufacturing facility with a constant product mix or from a single manufacturing process may be established. This ratio is applicable only to the wastewater from which it was derived and ca nnot be used to estimate the BOD5 of another facility’s wastewater.] EPA developed an industry - specific relationship between COD and BOD5 using analytical data for untreated deicing stormwater from the EPA sampling episodes at Albany International airport, Pittsburgh International airport, and Denver International airport. The average COD/BOD5 ratio was 1.67. This relationship was used to calculate the BOD5 associated with the degradation of the deicing chemical. See the Airport Deicing Loading Calculations memorandum (ERG, 2008d) for more information.417 [FOOTNOTE: 417 [FOOTNOTE:417 TDD at 10 - 19. The cited memorandum, Document - 1107 at 13 contains identical language: contrary to EPA’s representation the memorandum provides no “more information.” See also, T echnical Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category, at 7 - 7 (“For many types of wastewaters, the ratio between BOD and COD is relatively constant. When such a rel atively constant ratio exists, COD can be used as a surrogate to estimate the impact of wastewater discharges on natural wastewaters.”)] In other words, for purposes of measuring oxygen demand it does not really matter which “indicator” pollutant one uses as either is easily converted into an equivalent value. The critical determinate of whether the oxygen demand EPA is regulating is BOD or COD, is how the Agency is proposing to regulate, in physical terms, oxygen demand. In lay terms, it is what EPA is pro posing airports/airlines do to limit discharges of oxygen demand, not how it is measured, that determines the character of the discharge. Here, the Agency has determined that a biological treatment system is the best technology available for controlling ox ygen demanding substances entrained in wastewater from aircraft deicing activities. A biological treatment system by definition cannot treat substances that are unavailable to biota and therefore, control/regulate their discharge into the environment. If E PA were in fact regulating COD as distinct from BOD, it no doubt would be compelled to require adoption of treatment technology that in fact controlled COD as distinct from BOD.418 [FOOTNOTE:418 The only substances that EPA claims to be “regulating” using “COD as a surrogate” are PG, EG and acetone, all of which are readily treatable with biological systems. See Table 7 - 2, TDD at 7 - 12. As noted below, acetone is not properly regulated as it is not directly associated with aircraft deicing activity. That ace tone is treatable by biological systems is suggested by EPA’s data in this proceeding, which indicates the presence of acetone in influent to the ALB system and much reduced levels in effluent. See Document - 0731, Tables 5 - 3 to 5 - 5. See also World Health Organization, Environmental Health Criteria 207: Acetone at 4.2.2. (1998) (studies “indicate that acetone is easily biodegradable with acclimatized microorganisms”).] To the contrary, while the AFB systems EPA has identified as the best technology availabl e for treating aircraft501 deicing wastewater certainly will treat those “certain fractions of the materials measured by COD [that] do deplete oxygen available to aquatic organisms,” they just as certainly will not treat those “other fractions . . . [that] . . . do not as a practical matter deplete oxygen available to organisms.” In other words, AFBs will not and cannot treat precisely those “fractions” that make the “oxygen demand” regulated by EPA non - conventional (i.e., COD), rather than conventional (i.e., BOD). In short, by selecting AFBRs as BAT, EPA effectively has conceded that, no matter what it calls it or how it measures it, the oxygen demand it is regulating is biological not chemical oxygen demand.419 [FOOTNOTE:419 The Agency’s proposed COD effluen t limitations are not legally supportable on these grounds as well. While EPA has considerable discretion in identifying pollutants of concern, it is “unreasonable” to “establish an effluent limitation for a pollution parameter when the Agency's technologi cal model does not include treatment procedures for that pollutant.” FMC v. Train, 539 F.2d 973, 983 (4th Cir. 1976).] Response: EPA is regulating COD and not BOD under the final rule. See the preamble for a discussion on selection of BOD versus COD as the regulated pollutant. AFB systems designed and used for deicing stormwater use COD as a basis for the system design and control. Thus, EPA disagrees with the commenter that the Agency's technological model does not include treatment for COD. There are substantial data in the final rule record documenting that AFB treatment is effective at COD control. For a response to the remainder of this comment, see section V.B (BAT discussion) of the final rule preamble and the BPT essay in comment code L_BPT/BCT. OPPOSE_COD - Oppose COD as regulated pollutant Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 158 EPA Acknowledges That COD Does Not Accurately Reflect Actual Degradation of the Dissolved Oxygen Available to Biota It is the biological degradation reflected by the BOD test and not the chemical oxidation of the COD that most nearly mirrors the impact of discharges from this industry. The Agency itself has recognized this fact in its deliberations. "The downside of using COD as the regulated pollutant for ADF - contaminated stormwat er is that COD does not mimic the actual potential oxygen depletion in the receiving stream by naturally occurring bacteria due to the aggressive nature of the analytical method and its ability to oxidize even biologically resistant organic materials." 420 Similarly, the TDD observes that “COD eliminates the need to consider receiving water temperature when evaluating water quality concerns.”421 While possibly a convenience for the technician, the fact that the COD test does not account for the temperature of the receiving water makes it inferior to BOD as a test for this industry which, as the Agency is aware, discharges as a result of and, thus, during cold weather. Here, BOD most nearly represents the characteristics of discharges from the ADI as those di scharges are experienced by the receiving waters. More specifically, BOD more clearly indicates whether the “traditional problem of degradation of the dissolved oxygen available to biota” is being addressed, precisely what EPA has cited as the Congressiona l concern at the heart of the distinction between COD and BOD. In these circumstances, there is a presumption in favor of selecting BOD as the indicator pollutant which should only be overcome if COD is indisputable superior to BOD. As detailed below, EPA provides no such reasons. Response: See EPA's comment response to (Oppose_COD) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.2, Excerpt 157. Further, EPA notes that the location for measurement of the direct discharge treatment standard is at the discharge point of the on - site treatment system (treating the collected stormwater) and not in the receiving water.502 For a response to the remainder of this comment, see section V.B (BAT discussion) of the final rule preamble and the BPT essay in comment code L_BPT/BCT. OPPOSE_COD - Oppose COD as regulated pollutant Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 159 EPA’s “Reasons” for Asserting that COD Is a Better Indicator of “Pollutants Directly Associated with Aircraft Deicing Chemicals” Do Not Withstand Scrutiny As noted above, EPA acknowledges that its choice of COD over BOD is based, not on which of these pollutants should be regulated, but on which parameter is a better “indicator” of the pollutants it intends to regulate: "EPA determined that pollutants directly associated w ith aircraft deicing chemicals could be associated with an indicator pollutant. Initially, both COD and BOD5 were identified as possible indicator parameters. The Agency determined that COD is the best indicator for the following reasons . . ."422 As point ed out above, this is not sufficient to sustain the Agency’s determination that it is “regulating” COD rather than BOD. Moreover, it is not true that COD is a “better” indicator of “pollutants directly associated with aircraft deicing chemicals” than BOD i n any event. EPA posits four “reasons” for selecting COD over BOD on pages 44689 - 90 of the Notice, each of which we address in turn. Reason One : COD captures the oxygen demand from nitrogen and other organic components of the contaminated stormwater that may not be represented in a BOD5 analytical result. First, EPA provides no basis for making this claim and, in fact, can only say that the COD test “may” have this quality

– it can also be accurately stated on the basis of the evidence in the record (none) that COD “may not” have this quality. Therefore, there is no basis for distinguishing it from BOD. Second, EPA already is regulating separately for nitrogen. The Agency therefore has no need to avail itself of a measure of oxygen demand to “capture” nitro gen – certainly it provides no basis for elevating COD over BOD. More importantly, if COD does in fact “capture oxygen demand from nitrogen” this weighs in favor of selection of BOD, not against it. A discharge limit for oxygen demand is being set to estab lish compliance with “aircraft deicing” BAT; that is, as standard for treatment of ADF. The record clearly establishes that Nitrogen is not associated with ADF, but rather pavement deicers. In this context, it is critical to point out that EPA is proposing a discharge limit on oxygen demand to apply exclusively to ADF. Proposed § 449.10(b), entitled “Treatment of collected runoff from aircraft deicing,” provides: ... any existing point source subject to this Part must achieve the numeric effluent limitation s in Table I. These limitations must be met for all ADF collected pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 423 Both the referenced paragraphs (a) and (b) apply exclusively to ADF. So too, the referenced Table I identifies the proposed COD limit as the “pollutant or pollutant property” set to regulate the “aircraft deicing” wastestream. In contrast, the proposed limit for ammonia as nitrogen applies strictly to airfield pavement deicing.424 Thus, whether COD is the better “indicator pollutant (and the appropriate “regulated pollutant”) relates exclusively to the regulation of aircraft deicing and ADF not pavement deicing. As a result, if COD captures oxygen demand exerted by nitrogen while BOD does not, it is BOD, not COD that more accurately refle cts whether the treatment standard for ADF is being met. In fact, EPA has provided no basis whatsoever for regulating nitrogen as a component of ADF

– asserting that selection of COD will effectively do this merely establishes that EPA is seeking to regula te where it has provided absolutely no basis for doing so. This is precisely the problem with EPA’s assertion that COD also captures “other organic components” not represented in the BOD result. Indeed, EPA has clearly stated that many such “organic compon ents” are either affirmatively “beyond the scope of this regulation” and/or that the Agency has insufficient information upon which to base any regulation of these substances. In its Preamble, EPA states: As described in Section VII.C, EPA identified 21 po llutants of concern that stem directly from airport deicing operations. EPA estimates, however, that many of these pollutants, such as metals, are generally present in airport stormwater discharges irrespective of deicing activities that are taking place. These pollutants would be also present in discharges at airports where no deicing takes place and as such are beyond the scope of today’s proposed rule.425 EPA itself acknowledges that “COD is a measure of the oxygen - consuming capacity of inorganic503 and org anic matter present in water.”426 Thus, EPA concedes that COD will measure oxygen demand exerted by the inorganic substances (e.g., metals) and organic substances EPA affirmatively declares are “beyond the scope of the regulation.” That COD measures oxygen demand exerted by these substances even though they are beyond the scope of the regulation establishes that COD must not be selected as the indicator pollutant. Similarly, EPA acknowledges it does not have sufficient basis to regulate several organic subs tances associated with ADF. In Section 7.4 of its TDD, “Selection of Regulated Pollutants for Proposal,” EPA states: Table 7 - 2 lists the potential pollutants of concern identified in Section 7.3, along with an explanation of whether EPA selected the pollut ant for regulation. Based on the documented environmental impacts from airport deicing runoff, EPA focused on regulating those pollutants exerting oxygen demand and contributing toxicity to receiving water bodies. EPA found that the impacts of slug loads o f ADF stormwater on the dissolved oxygen of receiving streams, as well as color and odor issues associated with high ADF concentrations in stormwater discharge, are well documented. The main component of ADF is glycol, which exhibits significant oxygen dem and. Research by Corsi (Corsi et al., 2006) also identified potential toxicity concerns that may be linked to ADF additives, specifically triazoles and alkylphenols. In conversations with ADF manufacturers, EPA has been told that the use of triazole compou nds in ADF is being discontinued and that triazole use in European ADFs has been phased out. Alkylphenols and their ethoxylates have also been identified as potential toxic components of ADF. EPA’s sampling data have confirmed the presence of these compoun ds; however, EPA believes that insufficient information is currently available to fully characterize the extent to which these compounds are present in deicing stormwater and their impact.427 Moreover, EPA makes clear that it absolutely intends to exclude such substances from the scope of the regulation: While EPA has an understanding generally of ADF composition

— i.e., each product is a glycol - based compound with several additives

— deicing fluid manufacturers did not provide us with information on specific ADF formulations. These manufacturers declined several requests to provide information on formulations, citing concerns about confidential business information. EPA has learned about a number of the additives, but not necessarily their concentration, from other sources. Because of incomplete information on these ADF additives, EPA is not proposing numeric effluent limits for any of these additives.428 To the degree COD “captures” these substances while BOD does not (as EPA claims), EPA is doing precisely w hat it says it is not doing: setting an effluent limitation that applies to “these additives.” This weighs in favor of selecting BOD over COD, not the other way around. We note that the referenced Table 7 - 2 lists the 21 “pollutants of concern” and identifi es the “explanation of selection or non - selection of pollutant.” These substances can be placed in five categories: • three substances that are associated exclusively with urea use (Ammonia - as - N, Nitrate/Nitrite and TKN); • seven metals EPA for which EPA a dmits it has “limited impact data” and are not subject to BAT; • six organic substances for which EPA admits it has “limited data available;” • two parameters measuring oxygen demand (COD and BOD5); and • three organic substances associated with ADF usage that are regulated using “COD as surrogate” (EG, PG and acetone).429 Thus there are only three substances upon which EPA claims to have both enough data to upon which to base a decision to regulate that are intended to be regulated by COD. Of these, the Re cord contains information regarding only PG and EG

– it is devoid of any analysis regarding the amount of acetone associated with ADF usage. (We address acetone at length below.) At bottom, the only non - indicator pollutants EPA asserts are both intended to be within the scope of this regulation and for which it has provided a sufficient basis for regulating are PG and EG. But if EPA makes one thing clear in this context it is that “both of these parameters are good indicators of the glycol - based oxygen dema nd component of stormwater deicing.”430 That is, of the substances for which it has a basis for regulating via an “indicator pollutant” EPA concedes that there is absolutely no basis for selecting COD rather than BOD. i. Acetone is not associated with ADF usage and EPA is compelled to eliminate acetone as a pollutant of concern The information in the Record establishes that applying its own criteria EPA is compelled to eliminate acetone as a pollutant of concern. To our knowledge acetone has not been identi fied as a pollutant of concern in any airport permit and EPA’s own analyses concluded that acetone is not among the “pollutants of concern” identified in airport storm water pollution prevention plans (“SWPPP”)431 or substances with numeric limits in NPDES permits.432 Acetone is a common solvent and is widely used at aviation504 maintenance facilities.433 [FOOTNOTE:433 See, e.g., Hazardous Chemicals in the Aviation Workplace in FAA Aviation News at 8 (January / February 2001) (“Among the most widely encountere d hazardous chemicals in aviation maintenance facilities are acetone”).] At DIA, for example, “[m]aintencance of aircraft, vehicles and GSE is another industrial activity occurring widely at the Airport” and, while measures are in place to minimize runoff from such operations, DIA acknowledges that “[w]hen valves are positioned in collection mode at certain locations, residual material may be collected into the DIW [deicing waste] stormwater system.”434 [FOOTNOTE:434 CDM, Denver International Airport

– Stor mwater Management Plan at 2 - 7 (August 2004).] The Record includes water quality studies involving discharges from airports that indicate that acetone is not a contaminant related to that source.435 [FOOTNOTE:435 See Document - 0949 at 237, Biological and Wa ter Quality Study of the Stillwater River Watershed (November 6, 2001) (“Acetone was detected in 21% (6/29) of sediment samples, including some sites listed as having no quantifiable organic contamination. This chemical is used to clean sampling equipment and is a residual from cleaning and not considered being in the environment”) (emphasis added); Document - 0948 at 240, Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Miami River Basin, 1998 (June 21, 2000) (“Acetone was detected in 29% (18/63) of sedimen t samples including some sites listed as having no quantifiable organic contamination. This chemical is used to clean sampling equipment and is a residual from cleaning and not considered being in the environment) (emphasis added); Document - 0947 at 4, Bio logical and Water Quality Study of the Big Walnut Creek Basin 2000 (November 26, 2003) (“The ‘Columbus Airport Tributary’ was impacted by channelization, removal of the woody riparian corridor, runoff from Port Columbus International Airport including the persistent spillage of large quantities of airplane deicing solution (ethylene glycol), and sediment contamination (metals, PAHs)”; acetone detected in sediments at levels not exceeding Threshold Effect Concentration or Probable Effect Concentration).] Als o, there is nothing in the Record that supports any direct association of acetone with use of ADF. To the contrary, an in - depth study of ADF components by the Airport Cooperative Research Program (a study EPA characterizes as “contain[ing] significant addi tional information on airport deicing products”436) does not identify acetone as a potential ingredient.437 [FOOTNOTE:437 Document - 1118 at 2 - 2 to 2 - 10 (ACRP Project 02 - 01, Aircraft Deicing and Airfield Anti - Icing Formulations: Aquatic Toxicity and Biochem ical Oxygen Demand, Contractor’s Phase I Interim Report for ACRP Project 02 - 01 Submitted November 2008).] The Agency itself reviewed over 20 scientific articles examining the content of ADF, but did not list acetone among “the chemicals for which EPA found some evidence of use in airport deicing product formulations.”438 [FOOTNTOTE:438 EIB at 2 - 4 and Table 2 - 2.] The Agency also did not identify acetone as a potential ingredient when it conducted its assessment of ADF components in its Preliminary Data Study

– Airport Deicing Operations.439 [FOOTNOTE:439 Document

– 0107 at 9 - 10 to 9 - 14.] Moreover, were acetone a component of ADF, its presence would be positively correlated with the presence of PG in stormwater

– instead the data shows the opposite: the higher the concentration of PG, the lower the observed concentration of acetone.440 [FOOTNOTE: 440 Document Airport Acetone(ug/L) PG (mg/L) Sampling Point - 0731 ALB 15400 2600 Ave Influent to AFB - 0689 MSP 23700 8600 Low Strength Tank - 0730 PIT 10900 15800 Influ ent to RO System - 0729 DIA 4100 173500 Influent to MVR System - 0688 DTW 3340 181000 SP - 1 Frac Tank - 0689 MSP 1440 193000 High Strength Tank] ADF manufacturers perform strict quality control testing of ADF

– the presence of acetone at significant levels wou ld be considered inconsistent with quality standards. 441 [FOOTNOTE:441 ATA communication with various ADF manufacturers, including Dow Chemical and Octagon.] In addition, ADF manufacturers take measures to ensure solvents or other contaminants do not affe ct ADF in transport

– trucks are generally dedicated to transport of ADF only and cleaned with water or steam; pre - loading inspections require tanks, valves, pumps and hoses to be “clean, dry and odor free.”442 [FOOTONOTE:442 Octagon Process, Tank Truck Lo ading Report (Attachment 3).] The only possible indication that acetone is associated with ADF is a single sample taken from an ADF airline deicing truck during the Agency’s sampling episode at DTW. The Final Sampling Episode Report cites detection of acet one in “Northwest Type I ADF” at the extremely low concentration of 704 ug/L.443 A sample of the same fluid type taken on the same day at the same airport from a fixed - base operator’s (“FBO’s”) ADF storage tank using different procedures to prevent sample505 contamination returned a “non - detect” result for acetone. The other samples of ADF taken by EPA

– also of Northwest’s ADF

– also came back non - detect for acetone, indicating that the acetone identified in the single sample was an anomaly.444 Further, EPA’ s consultant (Eastern Research Group or “ERG”) details the differences in the procedures used to collect the DTW samples: A sample of Northwest’s Type I ADF (SPF - 3) was collected directly from a deicing truck as a grab - composite sample. The ADF was diluted by airline personnel to an ADF concentration of approximately 50 percent. The samples were collected by discharging the deicing fluid from the nozzle of the deicing vehicle into a composite jar (10 - litre pickle jar). The composite jar was then used to fil l the individual sample bottles. 445 . . . The FBO’s Type I ADF (SP - 7) was collected as a grab - composite sample from the FBO’s ADF storage tank. The Type I ADF, a viscous, slippery, gold - colored liquid was collected by transferring the liquid from the tank through a hose into the 10 - litre glass compositing jar. The FBO directed ERG to collect the ADF fluid from the hose rather than directly from the tank to avoid EPA/ERG from potentially contaminating the concentrated fluid with the sampling equipment. A va lve on the hose was operated by FBO personnel to fill the 10 - litre glass compositing jar. Individual sample bottles were filled with concentrated ADF from the 10 - liter glass composite jar. 446 While there was ample opportunity for contamination of the Nort hwest sample (#66116)

– for example, acetone may have been used to clean the nozzles

– this possibility was avoided during collection of the FBO sample (#66120). In addition, the laboratory acknowledges that the Northwest sample (#66116) was not analyzed c onsistent with applicable method (Method 1625C)

– specifically, it was “not analyzed neat (undiluted) because the sample extracts would not concentrate to the method - specified 1 - mL extract volume” and instead “the results from [a] 10 mL sample volume were reported by the laboratory.”447 In any event, even if valid, the single detection of ADF at a concentration of 740 ug/mL could not possibly support the conclusion that acetone in ADF is present in large enough quantities to account for the levels detected in untreated stormwater samples. In sum, acetone clearly is “from a source other than deicing/anti - icing chemical,” thus failing one of EPA’s criteria for selecting a substance as a pollutant of concern.448 EPA also identifies the following as a selection criterion: “Whether the pollutant is discharged in relatively small amounts and/or is likely to cause toxic effects.”449 Clearly, the substance is present in relatively small amounts and, in fact, is not present at all as a substance related to the activit y EPA proposes to regulate. In addition, EPA concedes that acetone “has low toxicity”

– indeed EPA concludes acetone has a lower “toxic weighting factor” than calcium.450 Response: See EPA's response to comments for EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Ex cerpts 160, 161, and 162. Also see the preamble for a discussion on why COD is the pollutant EPA chose to regulate. For a response to the remainder of this comment, see section V.B (BAT discussion) of the final rule preamble and the BPT essay in comment c ode L_BPT/BCT. OPPOSE_COD - Oppose COD as regulated pollutant Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 160 Reason Two : Toxic aircraft deicing fluid additive compounds in deicing stormwater may have a negative and variable impact on the acclimation of the active cultures used in BOD5 analysis, making that method less accurate than a COD analysis. This is contra dicted by the widespread use of BOD in favor of COD to monitor stormwater contamination pursuant to NPDES permits. In addition, as stated above, EPA’s conclusion that it is possible to derive an “industry - specific” COD/BOD ratio establishes that any suppos ed effect of toxicity on BOD testing can be overcome through proper analysis. Response: EPA evaluated the NPDES permits currently in place for the top 50 deicing airports in the U.S. (see the proposed rule record DCN 00611). EPA found that both BOD and COD had existing numerical standards506 and the commenter is correct in stating that BOD was regulated more often than COD. However, as discussed in Section 6.4 of the final rule TDD, ADFs contain both glycol - based compounds and additives (which are current ly under study) believed to affect the toxicity of deicing stormwater discharges. The fact that BOD is currently used more commonly in NPDES discharge permits for airports does not preclude the setting of a COD limit as the ELG standard. As EPA explains in the TDD and preamble, COD is an appropriate pollutant of concern for control and its use will bypass toxicity issues that may impact the active cultures used in BOD analysis. Further, EPA's use of a COD/BOD ratio as an estimating technique for evaluatin g BOD loads does not prevent EPA from selecting COD as a regulated pollutant and surrogate for organic treatment. For a response to the remainder of this comment, see section V.B (BAT discussion) of the final rule preamble and the BPT essay in comment co de L_BPT/BCT. OPPOSE_COD - Oppose COD as regulated pollutant Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 161 Reason Three : COD analyses are simple to conduct and can be measured in real time, compared to the 5 - day test required by the BOD5 analytical me thod. First, this is not a proper reason for selecting COD over BOD

– it is a matter of analytical convenience, not analytical accuracy. In any event, the Record establishes that the use of automated, real - time meters to measure BOD are used and accepted in the field. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan for NPDES permit at PDX actually requires use of these meters and that laboratory results will not be used to monitor BOD levels to ascertain compliance with BOD limits.451 [FOOTNOTE:451 Document

– 0184 at 2 - 11 and 2 - 12 (Water quality will be monitored through automated meter readings used to monitor BOD concentrations, as described below, with the exception of grab samples at selected outfalls . . . The BOD readings will be recorded from those outfalls equipp ed with automated meters (outfalls 002, 004, 006, 007, and eventually 01N and 01S). No grab samples will be collected from these outfalls for BOD5 laboratory analysis; . . . Automated meters will be used to monitor BOD concentrations at outfalls 002, 004, 006, 007, and eventually outfalls 01N and 01S. Grab samples for BOD5 laboratory analysis will not be collected from outfalls with automated BOD meters.”) (emphasis added).] EPA visited PDX and noted the use of the automated BOD meters.452 Simply put, with present technology there is no basis for selecting COD over BOD as a matter of sampling/analytic convenience. Response: EPA disagrees and concludes that COD is the appropriate pollutant for regulation because it can be measured quickly, accurately, and allows a treatment operator to ensure optimal operation. Data provided by industry and manufacturers of AFB systems demonstrate that it is industry practice to evaluate treatment effectiveness and system control by measuring COD. EPA notes that real - time BOD monitoring referenced by the commenter does not actually measure BOD but is instead based on a relationship of BOD5 to another parameter (e.g., dissolved oxygen). For a response to the remainder of this comment, see section V.B (BAT discussion) of th e final rule preamble and the BPT essay in comment code L_BPT/BCT. OPPOSE_COD - Oppose COD as regulated pollutant Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 162 Reason Four: The COD analytical method does not require measurement of the receiving water507 temperature.453 EPA’s fourth reason

– that the COD analytical method does not require measurement of the receiving water temperature

– may be true, but again speaks to convenience not relative efficacy of the tests. Further, EPA method 405.1 for BOD (5 - day s) specifies that the test be conducted at 20C. This temperature requirement is unrelated to the receiving water temperature. However, since the oxygen demand of organic constituents is a function of water temperature, the BOD test, not the COD test, is we ll suited to account for and address the temperature dependency of biological oxygen demand. Moreover, the record establishes that EPA’s concern. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 161 (above). Also see the final rule preamble and the BPT essay in comment code L_BPT/BCT for additional details. OPPOSE_COD - Oppose COD as regulated pollutant Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 127 BOD5, not COD, is a more appropriate indicator pollutant for deicing chemicals. This point is n oted separately because the choice of pollutant has major implications for the technology standard used. We maintain that propylene glycol has relatively few toxic constituents, and that BOD5 is a superior parameter when evaluating the effects on biota, ma king BOD the more appropriate base of measurement. The use of BOD5 would correspond to the selection of Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology rather than BAT. Response: See EPA's response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1, Comment Excerpt 1 56. Also see the final rule preamble and the BPT essay in comment code L_BPT/BCT. OPPOSE_COD - Oppose COD as regulated pollutant Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 13 Page 44689, Section VII.D.2. Additional parameters are necessary in the regul ation. COD is not adequate as the only parameter to have an effluent limitation. BOD and Propylene Glycol need to be included as regulated parameters. Propylene glycol exerts an extraordinary BOD in receiving streams. Fish kills adjacent to airports have b een caused by a lack of dissolved oxygen in the stream based on the BOD of the glycols. While BOD analysis takes longer to run than COD analysis, it determines a more precise level of oxygen demand that will occur within the receiving streams. BOD accounts for carbonaceous as well as nitrogenous oxygen demand. COD is a chemical (dichromate) oxidation; it is not oxidation by microorganisms that will occur in the receiving streams. COD and BOD are not always a constant ratio. BOD can vary significantly based on environmental conditions and needs to be limited under this ELG in order to protect receiving streams. A correlation between BOD and COD for a specific site may be developed over time. Propylene glycol needs to be included to allow an airport to determi ne the source of elevated levels of BOD and low dissolved oxygen levels in receiving streams. EPA did not consider a pollutant as a potential pollutant of concern if it is present in the deicing storm water from a source other than deicing chemical use. EP A should consider pollutants as a potential pollutant of concern if it is associated with the facility operation. In addition to deicing chemicals, airfield runoff may be contaminated with jet fuel, oils, greases, and acids used for runway rubber removal. EPA also eliminated pollutants such as metals because they are generally present in airport storm water discharges irrespective of deicing activities that are taking place. These pollutants would also be present in discharges at airports where no deicing t akes place and as such are beyond the scope of the rule. The elimination of airports508 from the scope of the rule should not be the basis of elimination of pollutants of concern. If the airport is subject to the rule, then all of the pollutants in the discha rges from deicing activities, including those such as metals, should be evaluated for regulation. Airports will be required to submit analytical data on the discharges from these facilities, and will identify these parameters as being present in the discha rges. Therefore, EPA should apply a rational to identify these as parameters of concern, and establish technology based effluent limitations for the selected parameters. These discharges of storm water and/or groundwater will exist during non - deicing seaso ns. Response: EPA's final rule is specific to airport deicing operations, as opposed to general stormwater discharges at an airport and the selection of COD as the appropriate pollutant to regulate has been documented in the final rule TDD and is discus sed in the final rule preamble. EPA notes that other pollutants that enter airport stormwater discharges from operations or activities other than deicing operations are regulated through the stormwater program. In determining appropriate limits for the permit, permit authorities will consider not only technology - based limits but also any water - quality - based effluent limits that are appropriate to add on a facility - specific basis. Also see the preamble as well as the BPT essay in comment code L_BPT/BCT. OPPOSE_COD - Oppose COD as regulated pollutant Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1243 - 4 Potassium, acetate, and formate would all be present in collected wastewater at airports that use deicers with these components. The current proposed rule is based upon treatment of this collected wastewater which would be evaluated by COD reduction. The source of COD will not be sufficiently characterized without including acetate and formate along with glycols in the monitoring parameters and Pollutants of Concern . Response: The final rule is based upon the discontinued use of urea as an airfield deicing chemical. See comment code AIRFIELD_LOAD, EPA's response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1, Comment Excerpt 21 for a discussion of why EPA determined not to expand the regulation to collection and control of deicing stormwater from airfield deicing discharges. Similar to the proposed rule, the final NSPS rule sets standards only for the parameter COD. EPA disagrees that it must also include limitations on B OD and propylene glycol, for the reasons explained in the BPT essay in comment code L_BPT/BCT and the TDD for a discussion on selection of pollutants for regulation. OPPOSE_COD - Oppose COD as regulated pollutant Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 13 In addition to costs incurred to improve the ADF collection rate, the Proposed Rule will require SLC to meet a COD limit. Additional monitoring and effluent treatment equipment will be required to meet the proposed COD limit. SLC does not have a tre atment system in place to treat discharged effluent from its five outfalls. SLC, as it currently operates, is unable to meet the EPA proposed daily COD limit of 271milligrams per liter (mg/L) and 154/mg/L weekly maximum. COD standards proposed by EPA were developed based on inconsistent and inaccurate estimations and assumptions at SLC. Present biological oxygen demand (BOD) levels at SLC range from 9 mg/L to 3000 mg/L during deicing season, October through April, and 0 mg/L to 1350 mg/L from May through Se ptember. Typically, when analyzing storm water samples for both BOD and COD simultaneously, the COD value is higher than the BOD value.509 Based on years of analytical data, the effluent COD values of storm water at SLC will exceed the proposed EPA limit of 2 71 mg/L during spring and summer months, as well as during deicing season. Significant improvements to the existing collection and treatment system at SLC would need to be budgeted and designed in order to comply with EPA's proposed limit. Operational impa cts would also need to be evaluated and additional staff hired to operate, monitor, and sample the new equipment. The Proposed Rule essentially forces airports to build larger treatment systems to decrease COD loads. EPA must prove that the environmental b enefit of the Proposed Rule is commensurate with the additional expense that would be required to meet the proposed ELG. Response: This comment is specific to EPA’s consideration of requiring ADF collection and treatment to control aircraft deicing disch arges. As explained in the preamble, EPA did not promulgate uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. EPA disagrees that it must also include limitations on BOD and propylene glycol, for the reasons explained in the BPT e ssay in comment code L_BPT/BCT and the TDD for a discussion on selection of pollutants for regulation. As explained in the preamble, COD is an appropriate indicator of BOD and glycols. It includes measurement of both compounds and the data in the record s how that they are treated effectively when COD is treated effectively. OPPOSE_REG - Oppose Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 1 (AAAE) Certain airports already meet the standards of the proposed ELG regulation via the limits and best management practices of their general permits, therefore rendering the ELG regulation essentially superfluous and unnecessary. However, as discussed in detai l below, there are many additional airports that are operated by AAAE's members who are greatly concerned that they will be unduly saddled with both operational and economic burdens as a result of this proposed rule. While this is a rule of national scope, it is not a good fit for all airports considering the vast differences among airports in terms of size, location and configuration of operations. Furthermore, when considering any additional regulations being placed upon the industry, we should not undere stimate the importance of agency coordination. It is imperative that the EPA understand the regulatory environment that these facilities operate in, as well as the complexities that exist within the operational environment at an airport. Response: See r esponse to 1218.1 - 1 (IATA, below). (BAT provisions are economically achievable, NSPS provisions will not pose a barrier to entry, & no provisions will pose any impact on airport safety or operations.) OPPOSE_REG - Oppose Proposed Rule – General comment s Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 2 (PA NY/NJ) EPA has established the Airport Deicing Category as an “industry” to which effluent limitation guidelines would be applied.10 While aircraft deicing certainly fits within EPA’s regulatory defini tion of “stormwater associated with industrial activity,”11 that is where the similarity with past industrial ELGs ends. Traditional ELGs that focus on precise industrial processes generally target highly consistent wastewater influent that varies little o ver months of manufacturing processes and is highly predictable510 from a treatment perspective. A typical industrial facility, such as a manufacturing/processing plant of the type addressed in previous ELG efforts by the EPA, involves a controlled environmen t in which people carry out various processes under the supervision of a plant operator. In fact, some processes are so consistent and predictable that final effluent limits can be controlled at parts per trillion or parts per quadrillion levels. Although the plant is subject to various regulatory controls, the operator has the ultimate authority and responsibility to run the facility. Systems can be designed to operate consistently for a facility of a particular capacity, regardless of the facility locatio n. A system can be scaled up or down to accommodate different plant sizes. If a plant needs to expand, the owner can enlarge it or move it (though at some expense) to a different location. The Proposed Rule and supporting documents appear to be based on th e erroneous assumption that airports can be characterized in this way. Conversely, aircraft deicing operations focus on public safety to account for highly varied weather conditions. There simply are no comparisons or similarities between traditional manuf acturing wastewaters and deicing related storm water discharges. Airports are highly more complex entities than “factories” and include many more “participants” and variables. Response: CWA sec. 304(b) authorizes EPA to set effluent guidelines for "clas ses and categories of point sources..." While historically EPA has issued many regulations for manufacturing and mineral extraction industries, the statute lists no restrictions on how the Agency may define these categories, other than to exclude publicly owned treatment works from consideration. In recent years EPA has issued rules for several service industries, i.e. Centralized Waste Treatment, Landfills, Waste Combustors and Transportation Equipment Cleaning, that don't have consistent wastewater influ ent. In fact, the constituents and volume to be treated vary in some cases much more than in the deicing category. Nevertheless, that fact is mostly irrelevant because as mentioned above, the CWA does not require consistent wastewater influent to establi sh ELGs. This is sufficient grounds for EPA to promulgate a standard set of minimum requirements -- ELGs -- for these dischargers. It is not required that there be a "precise industrial process" in order to be subject to an ELG. Likewise, a large number of "p articipants" at a facility does not eliminate it for ELG consideration. The Agency is required to consider various statutory factors in assessing best available technology, as well as "such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate." EPA can c onsider weather conditions and other operational factors. EPA has considered the complexity of airport operations with regard to variability and multiple participants, such as the various airlines and contractors, as well as operations directly controlled by airport staff. In this review the Agency has identified airports that have effectively managed this complexity and exerted control over their wastewater discharges. This includes some of the largest airports in the country. EPA has based BAT and NSPS on the technologies employed at these airports. EPA has identified the best available technology economically achievable (for existing sources) and [BADCT] (for new sources) for this industry. See sections IV.D. and V. of the final rule preamble for a mo re detailed discussion. Based on information provided by the industry and others since the proposal, EPA now concludes that because of operational and safety issues, national, uniform BAT limitations should not be set for existing airports. See section V .B.4 of the preamble. OPPOSE_REG - Oppose Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 5 The Proposed Rule does not consider compliance issues with varied year - to - year departure levels, or varied use of deicing fluids

– the latter of which is totally weather driven. This structure appears to be based on the conclusion that annual departures (a s a basic measure) and deicing fluid use are adequate511 means to characterize airports. Yet there are a number of other factors that characterize our airports with respect to aircraft deicing: weather patterns, runway configurations and use, hourly departure s, aircraft fleet mix, aircraft delay and related operational procedures, land availability, and receiving waters. These factors affect the feasibility and cost of Port Authority compliance with the Proposed Rule, as well as the benefits that compliance wo uld provide. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ) and response to 1232.1 #2 (above). For NSPS, the scope of the final rule is not based on deicing fluid usage, but on the location of the airport in a cold climate zone and the number of anticipated departures. See §449.11(a) and section V.B.2 of the preamble. OPPOSE_REG - Oppose Proposed Rule – General comments Co mment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 7 (Inland Technologies) The justification for selecting AFB as the model onsite treatment technology is questionable. Our review of the proposed rule and supporting documentation identified the following criteri a as the foundation for EPA’s justification for the selection of AFB as the “Best Available Technology” (BAT): 1. Effluent quality suitable for direct discharge to surface waters 2. Greatest pollutant removal 3. Flexibility to accept ADF - contaminated storm water with a wide range of glycol concentrations Specifically, Section 9.1.4 of the Technical Development Document (TDD) states “EPA selected AFB biological treatment for further evaluation since it represents the best technology currently in use by airpor ts to treat deicing stormwater prior to direct discharge.” EPA’s selection of the AFB process as the model onsite treatment technology is justified in this section by the following statement: “Effluent from the AFB can be discharged to a local POTW or, in most cases, directly to surface water.” A similar statement is made in Section 11.1: “EPA selected AFB treatment as the best available technology for ADF - contaminated stormwater, based on its ability to produce an effluent stream clean enough for direct di scharge.” These statements present weak justification for a number of reasons. The justification is based on two relatively small installations, only one of which (ALB) had usable performance data. The word “most” cannot be justified based on such limited information. The AFB plant at ALB does not generate effluent quality suitable for direct discharge to surface waters. The ALB’s SPDES Permit contains a limitation of 45 mg/l daily maximum ultimate oxygen demand (UOD) in the discharge from the onsite treatm ent facility. UOD is defined in the permit as 28 - day BOD. The ACRP 02 - 01 research project found that the 28 - day BOD of propylene glycol is about 82% that of its COD1. Thus, this limit is roughly equivalent to a COD of 55 mg/L. With an average effluent COD concentration of 133 mg/L, the ALB AFB was incapable of meeting this discharge limit. An aerobic treatment process was installed to polish the effluent prior to discharge to consistently meet the permit limits. In Section 14.4.1 of the TDD, titled “Albany Treatment System”, EPA indicates that “As the basis for the proposed limitations for COD, EPA selected the data at sample points ArprtR - 101 and ArprtR - 102 because each unit is the same as the model treatment system that EPA identified in Section 13.” These two sampling points are prior to an aerobic polishing treatment unit that is required before the effluent can be discharged directly to surface waters. Thus, an effluent limit based on these data does not reflect “an effluent stream clean enough for direc t discharge” as EPA asserts in Section 11.1 of the TDD. Response: EPA notes that the final rule does not establish uniform performance requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing facilities, therefore this comment is no longer relevant to th e final rule with respect to existing airports.512 However, the comparison made in the TDD and preamble is intended to be a comparison between indirect and direct dischargers generally. Typically, data demonstrate that indirect dischargers do not need to tr eat to the same level as direct dischargers because they have less stringent discharge requirements or none at all for certain pollutants. This is because this wastewater is additionally treated by the POTW prior to direct discharge. While this is not tr ue for all parameters, this is especially true of conventional parameters. As such, indirect discharges may use technologies that are less effective than direct dischargers and/or often don’t need to optimize their treatment systems to meet the same level of stringency. In contrast, direct dischargers typically have more stringent discharge requirements and as such need to use more effective technologies and/or need to operate them to achieve these more stringent discharge requirements. This is what we m eant when referring to being clean enough for direct discharge. Regarding the opportunity for an airport to direct its wastewater to a POTW, EPA did not assume that any wastewater would be sent to a POTW, either with or without pretreatment. Our analysis accounts for the costs of an on - site treatment system in all cases. EPA based the final NSPS limitations for COD upon data from Albany Airport’s treatment system. This system consists of two identical units that are consistent with EPA’s model technolo gy described in Section 8 of the TDD. The airport diverts stormwater from deicing operations into a lagoon. Facility personnel then pump water from the lagoon to one anaerobic unit or the other for treatment. The airport generally operates the two treatmen t systems in parallel, but sometimes runs them in series. At the end of each unit, regardless of whether the system is in parallel or series, the airport monitors COD concentrations each morning by collecting grab samples to evaluate the treatment performa nce. This is the point in the treatment system that represents the technology basis for today’s NSPS standards. As described in Chapter 8 of the Final TDD, this part of the treatment system reduced COD by greater than 97 percent, BOD5 by greater than 98 p ercent, and glycol by greater than 99 percent. After this step, the two units combine into a single flow before entering additional treatment, an aerobic polishing pond, for more treatment. Albany additionally operates the aerobic polishing system becaus e it directly discharges waste into Shaker Creek, a tributary of the Mohawk River, which has been classified as a New York State Class A drinking water stream. As a consequence, the airport is required to meet extremely stringent water quality limitations when it discharges directly to the creek. EPA considered the technology represented by the full treatment train at Albany, and found that the addition of the aerobic treatment achieved very limited pollutant removals as compared to the AFB system at what w ould be likely twice the cost (i.e. the construction and operation costs of the aerobic system are likely similar to the anaerobic system). Because of this determination and because the additional treatment step addresses such site - specific concerns, EPA d id not further evaluate standards based on a technology that includes the entire treatment train at Albany for national technology based standards. Local water quality limits are the appropriate regulatory vehicle to address site specific water quality co ncerns, as is the case with Albany. EPA notes that it did not receive any comments indicating that is should reconsider this determination. Further, the Agency may base the NSPS standard on data from one or more facilities, of any size, if it determines that sufficient data are available to make an estimate that the technology will perform with comparable results across the category. For the final rule, based on the Albany data, EPA concludes that AFB systems generally can perform with comparable results across the industry category. See section V.C. in the final rule preamble and section 8.4 in the Technical Development Document. OPPOSE_REG - Oppose Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1218.1 - 1 (IATA)513 IATA believes the EPA overlooks the significant impact this NPRM would have on domestic and international airline safety, operations and costs. Airplane deic ing is a crucial, safety - sensitive industry practice, which cannot be altered without serious deliberation by industry stakeholders and the FAA. While we share the EPA’s goal to improve the environmental record of the aviation industry, we believe this pro posal is inapplicable to the present aviation system. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports). Also see Section V.B.4 of t he final preamble. For the remaining final rule provisions that EPA is promulgating, EPA determined that the BAT provisions are economically achievable, the NSPS provisions will not pose a barrier to entry, and no provisions will pose any impact on airpor t safety or operations. See section V.B. (BAT) and section V.C. (NSPS) of the final rule preamble. Also, EPA has worked with FAA on the development of the rule and FAA has concurred on the final rule. See DCN AD01337. OPPOSE_REG - Oppose Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1219.1 - 8 (NATA) NATA believes that the issuance of these proposed ELG and NSPS represent an improper approach to dealing with the environmental concerns relating to runoff from de - icing activities at airports. The issuance of ELG and NSPS require airports to comply with specific facility, equipment and procedural mandates imposed by the EPA, an agency unfamiliar with and ill prepared to deal with the demanding nature of airport operations. NATA bel ieves that addressing de - icing runoff concerns with an inflexible national standard will harm airports, aircraft operators, the flying public and the national economy. NATA recommends that the EPA refine its approach to a case - by - case basis where the speci fic environmental needs can be effectively balanced with the operational needs of individual airports. Response: EPA has studied the deicing operations and chemicals used at airports nationwide, and found the deicing practices to be similar. Neverthele ss, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, since the time of the proposal has EPA determined that technology - based limitations for control of ADF at existing airports are best determined on a site - specific basis, because of operational and safety issue s that vary with each existing airport. Therefore, as the commenter recommends, the final rule leaves the determination of BAT - based limits for control of ADF at existing airports to be decided on a case - by - case basis by the permit writer. However, with respect to airfield (pavement) deicing, these operational and safety issues do not apply (see further discussion in preamble). Further, the airports that EPA studied are generally using the same type of airfield pavement deicing chemicals and are discharg ing the same pollutants into surface waters nationwide. This makes airports, as a group, an ideal candidate for the development of national effluent guidelines, as envisioned by Congress in the Clean Water Act, for the control of airfield deicing discharg es. Similarly, for new sources, EPA determined it is appropriate to set uniform national requirements for both aircraft as well as airfield discharges. EPA determined the same operational and safety considerations it found that may limit the ability of an exi sting airport to utilize specific ADF collection technologies don’t apply for new airports. See Section V.C of the final preamble.514 OPPOSE_REG - Oppose Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 1 (ATA) EPA Should Withdraw The Proposed Rule and Remove The Airport Deicing Industry From The Effluent Guidelines Plan. The effort to develop an ELG for the airport deicing industry presents challenges unprecedented in the history of the Effluent Guidelines Progr am. Upon careful and considered review of the issues raised by EPA’s attempt to craft a workable ELG for this industry, ATA believes that any reasoned analysis compels the conclusion that it is not possible to develop reasonable, legally sustainable standa rds of the type and nature required under the program in this instance. Response: EPA disagrees. See the responses to comment 1231.1 #2 (PA NY/NJ, above), 1219.1 #8 (NATA, above) and the preamble to the final rule. OPPOSE_REG - Oppose Proposed Rule – G eneral comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1236.1 - 3 [B] ecause these issues require aircraft, weather, and site specific decisions, they cannot be made on an industry - wide basis as the Agency attempts to do in this rulemaking. Response: For the reasons explained in the final preamble, the final rule does not establish nationally applicable requirements for aircraft deicing discharges at existing airports. Such requirements will continue to be determined on a site - specific, BPJ basis, therefo re this comment is not applicable to the final rule. OPPOSE_REG - Oppose Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1236.1 - 7 The fact that the Agency did not adequately account for the additional delay impacts and other signifi cant operational consequences of its Proposed Rule marks the current proposal for serious reconsideration. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for the collection or treatmen t of ADF at existing airports). With respect to NSPS requirements for aircraft deicing discharges, based on the information in EPA’s record, when designed properly, deicing pads will not delay the speed in which planes can be processed versus deicing at the gate. See DCN AD01337 and DCN AD01297. OPPOSE_REG - Oppose Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 1 (ACI) ACI - NA, however, believes that the Proposed Rule is ill - advised and will result in significant negative impacts on airports and the National Aviation System (NAS), while not generating commensurate environmental benefits. The aviation industry continues to recover from the many challenges resulting from September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, as well as the d ownturn in our nation’s economy. The high515 costs and liabilities associated with EPA’s mandates in the Proposed Rule could cripple many airports that are vital to the NAS. Response: EPA has done an extensive analysis of the economics associated with deicing and has determined that the final rule satisfies the statutory standards of being economically achievable (for existing airports) and not a barrier to entry (for new sources). OPPOSE_REG - Oppose Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 18 (SLC Airport) The number of discrepancies and erroneous assumptions made by the EPA in the Proposed Rule present great concerns to SLCDA. A considerable amount of discretion will be given to the various state regulators, who will write NPDES renewal permits based on inaccurate findings that have been stated in EPA's ELG regulation. Response: There are no specifics provided in this short paragraph on "inaccurate findings". EPA has responded to specific comments on discrepanc ies and assumptions in more specific comments throughout this comment response document. P2_ANALYSIS - EPA’s analysis of pollution prevention technologies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1169 - 4 (South Metro Airport Action Council; MSP area) Additional EPA regulations should address how recovered ADF is disposed of, and what pollutants are incorporated in ADFs, so that regulation effectively limits the volume of pollution discharges. Response: See response to (P2_Credit) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 003 8 - 1216.1. Excerpt number : 4 P2_ANALYSIS - EPA’s analysis of pollution prevention technologies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1169 - 6 If the goal is reducing ADF pollution, the most effective means is to limit application and dispersal volumes by limiting airport operations when deicing is inefficient or dangerous, such as repeated deicing of aircraft, in high winds, or when systems for application or recovery are over - stressed. Response: See response (P2_Credit) Comment # EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 excerpt Number 4. The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports. For new sources, the final rule does not limit or control the amount of ADF that an applier can use on an aircraft. Safety is the top priority, and the applier is to use the amount ADF that it deems appropriate. After the ADF application, this effluent guideline s rule addresses how much needs to be collected and treated. P2_ANALYSIS - EPA’s analysis of pollution prevention technologies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1202.1 - 1 (Radiant Aviation)516 All currently available deicing methods (snow/ice removal pr ocesses) require the application of anti - icing fluid under well - defined conditions stipulated by regulators, based on the potential for freezing precipitation occurring anytime up until the aircraft begins its take - off run. • Anti - icing fluid application o ccurs inside the Radiant Deicing System after the aircraft has been completely deiced, ensuring that valuable Holdover protection time for the Flight Crew is not wasted. o Airlines have commented that the Radiant process increases the amount of usable hold over time available to Flight Crew during heavy precipitation conditions. o Traditional outdoor deicing operations have to adopt more restrictive and inefficient sectional deicing practices in order to comply with the FAA and industry requirement commonly known as the “3 minute rule”. This is the maximum waiting time recommended before anti icing fluid should be applied to an already deiced area that is still exposed to freezing precipitation. After that, the possibility exists for the surface to refreeze u nder many conditions. These restrictive processes waste the amount of useable holdover time available to the Flight Crew for a safe take - off. Response: See response (P2_Credit) Comment # EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 excerpt Number 4 and 1202.1 - 4 (Code B AT_IR) (EPA disagrees that IR technology is widely available) P2_ANALYSIS - EPA’s analysis of pollution prevention technologies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1202.1 - 2 We agree that there is a reduction in anti - icing fluid usage. However we conside r that this reduction is attributed to: • Starting the anti - icing process after all deicing is complete. o There are fewer instances, compared to conventional deicing methods, of aircraft requiring another deicing fluid application due to the critical surf aces being re - contaminated by snow or freezing rain; further reducing the overall environmental impact. o Whereas, conventional deicing methods may need to be repeated under heavy precipitation conditions, resulting in a need for multiple applications of f luids before the aircraft is deemed ready for take - off. This, of course, further adds to cost and environmental mitigation consequences. • The application of anti - ice fluid is conducted efficiently and consistently within a covered well - lit environment whi ch significantly lessens the impact of the ambient weather conditions. This results in more efficient spraying and less fluid being required, decreasing costs and lowering the environmental exposure. Response: See response (P2_Credit) Comment # EPA - HQ - O W - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 excerpt Number 4 and 1202.1 - 4 (Code BAT_IR) (EPA disagrees that IR technology is widely available) P2_ANALYSIS - EPA’s analysis of pollution prevention technologies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1213.2 - 2 (DEN Airport) Technical Development Document, page 8 - 13 8.2.5 Mechanical Vapor Recompression The reported capacity of 25,000 gallons per day for each MVR is incorrect. The correct capacity, on average, is 3,250 gallons per day. Apparently, this error was copied from the Final Engineering Site Visit Report for Denver International Airport dated November 4, 20 0 7. DCN AD00779. Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this additional information. EPA has incorporated this correction into the Final Site Visit Report and is providing the updated document in the final rule record.517 P2_ANALYSIS - EPA’s analysis of pollution prevention technologies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 31 (EQ Resource Recovery) Recycling ADF more Energy Efficient/Lower GHG Impact: and A lthough this section of the publication was intended to discuss the (additional) energy requirements imposed by the collection and treatment technologies proposed, EQRR would like to take this opportunity to also present the energy savings that recycling t echnologies provide. In recent years, EQRR has been approached by our Industrial PG customers requesting that we assess the direct energy costs associated with recycling the spent ADF into an industrial grade propylene glycol (PGI). The information provide d to EQRR (by the requesting parties) was that the manufacturers of virgin PG expressed the direct energy consumption (embodied) in a pound of PGI as being approx. 44,500 BTU. Analysis of EQRR's processes (omitting the collection and transportation compone nts) revealed that Energy Information Administration US Highway Diesel Fuel Prices; http://tonto.eia.doe. g ov/ooq/info/wohdp/diesel.asp our processes 12 consume approx. 15,125 BTU/pound of PGI reclaimed. As such, an ADF/PGI recycle process requires approx 1 /3rd the energy required to produce the virgin material. In terms of "carbon - footprint" it could be estimated that EQRR has reduced energy consumption 2.83 Billion BTUs since 1997 (estimated as 165,000 metric tons CO2 equivalent, or 45,000 metric tons Car bon Equivalent). Response: See response (P2_Credit) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 excerpt Number 4. P2_ANALYSIS - EPA’s analysis of pollution prevention technologies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 48 TDD Page 8 - 13, section 8.2.3. To clarify, the RO permeate from the PIT OF/RO is directed to the POTW for further processing. Regarding Page 8 - 13, section 8.2.6, some clarification is required regarding the distillation process. The statement "A drawback of distillation is that it creates contamina ted washdown water that cannot be discharged and must be treated further" is not accurate. First, the evaporative process also generates a water cut (called condensate) which in most cases requires further treatment prior to (indirect) discharge, a fact no t expressed by your review. Typically this is managed via an RO system, with the reject (concentrated material) returned to the recycle process and the RO permeate discharged to a POTW. Secondly, depending on whether you are operating a batch or continuous mode distillation system, the majority of the water cut (distillate) can be discharged to the local POTW without further processing. (In a batch mode, there is a "mid - cut" water/glycol mixture which marks the transition from water removal and product. Thi s small volume is re - directed to the process feed.) EQ operates both types of distillation systems. On page 8 - 14, of the same section, the description of the SLC distillation process requires clarification. "At SLC airport, 40 to 45 percent glycol - concentr ated stormwater is passed through a finisher to increase the concentration to approximately 70 to 80 percent glycol and then discharged to a storage tank. The stored concentrate is sent to a distillation column where it is heated to 250 to 260° F to produc e a final product of 100 percent glycol. Distillate from the distillation column is discharged to a storage tank and the column bottoms are disposed of in an incinerator (USEPA, 2008b)" The underlined portion of the above statement is actually a descriptio n of one of the stages of evaporation at SLC, not the distillation process. The distillate is directed to a storage tank, prior to RO treatment and (indirect) discharge. The still bottoms (residual solids) are disposed of at an off - site facility (landfill ) which also operates an incinerator. The SLC still bottoms are land - filled. Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this information. We agree with these comments and therefore we have made edits to Section 7.2.2 and 8.1.5 of the final TDD to reflect this input. Additionally, EPA is aware518 that Albany airport treats AFB effluent with an aerob ic polishing system aimed to reduce the amount of solids and treat any ammonia remaining in the wastestream post AFB treatment. Data utilized by EPA to support effluent standards in the final rule represent effluent data from the AFB, not the aerobic tre atment system. P2_ANALYSIS - EPA’s analysis of pollution prevention technologies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 11 (Inland Technologies) The analysis of onsite treatment alternatives does not accurately or thoroughly consider technologies for recovering and recycling glycol from aircraft deicing runoff. a) The description of the onsite recycling process is inaccurate. EPA describes components of a recycling facility as if they were employed as standalone treatment technologies. This is not the case. Instead, onsite recycling typically includes some combination of Ultrafiltration (UF), reverse osmosis (RO), mechanical vapor recompression (MVR) and distillation technologies configured as an integrated treatment train to meet the specific requi rements of the airport where it is located3. The flowchart in Figure 1 illustrates how these technologies function in the onsite recycling system at BDL. It can be seen from Figure 1 that the component technologies are configured to complement each other. The use of RO in this application results in greater capture of PG than would be possible with MVR unit alone. As mentioned previously, this particular installation was never designed to discharge to surface waters, but nonetheless produces a permeate (i.e ., effluent waste stream) capable of meeting the proposed EPA COD limitations. There are many examples of different configurations of onsite recycling facility components that have been designed to meet airport - specific objectives. At PVD glycol is concent rated using MVR and the distillate is treated by RO to achieve a concentrate that can be cost - effectively distilled offsite. At Denver International Airport (DEN), the distillation unit is onsite, so only MVR is required for initial concentration. IAD’s pr ogram uses MVR only with the concentrate shipped offsite for distillation. In each case, there were advantages to discharging the reject water to the sanitary sewer instead of direct discharge. For example, at T.F. Green Airport (PVD) in Providence, RI was much more expedient to obtain a permit for discharge to the sanitary sewer than modifying the airport’s NPDES industrial stormwater permit to add a wastewater discharge. The point of these examples is that each system was customized based on contractual a nd permit requirements. None of these facilities was designed to meet the level of treatment that EPA is proposing for BAT, but it is a mistake to conclude that it is infeasible or impractical to design and operate an onsite recycling facility that meets t hose requirements. [See submittal for Figure 1. Schematic of the onsite recycling system components at BDL.] Response: See response (P2_Credit) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 excerpt Number 4. P2_ANALYSIS - EPA’s analysis of pollution prevention technologi es Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 12 EPA fails to acknowledge the widespread use of glycol recycling technology for onsite treatment of deicing runoff. To demonstrate the scale of practical recycling of spent ADF, Inland has recovered 6.31 mi llion gallons of pure glycol from 54.2 million gallons of dilute in - feed at U.S. airports during the period between September 1997 and January 2010. The EQ Company reported recovering more than 11 million gallons of pure glycol from approximately 195 mill ion gallons of dilute fluid over the same time period. Conservatively, our two companies have processed far more aircraft deicing runoff from U.S. airports than both of the AFBs in operation combined, and have recovered more than 17.3 million gallons of pu re glycol from that runoff.519 Response: See response (P2_Credit) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 excerpt Number 4. P2_ANALYSIS - EPA’s analysis of pollution prevention technologies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - excerpts 13 and 14 The feasibility of direct discharge of effluent from onsite recycling facilities is misrepresented. A cornerstone justification for EPA’s elimination of recycling, as a model onsite treatment technology is the claim that the effluent stream cannot be disch arged directly to surface waters. Specifically, • Section 11.1 of the TDD states: “Other technologies evaluated for the Airport Deicing Category can recover and recycle glycol from ADF - contaminated stormwater. However, the residual waste streams from these technologies may require additional treatment or must be discharged to a Public Owned Treatment Works (POTW).” • Section 11.3.2.3 states “...only the anaerobic fluid bed and aerobic biological treatment ponds effectively treated the wastewater for discharge to surface water through a permitted outfall. Although Ultrafiltration with reverse osmosis and MVR both can recover and potentially recycle glycol, neither generated effluents that could be directly discharged to surface water. Residual streams from each of these technologies contained significant levels of COD that required discharge to a POTW for further processing.” • These statements are justified in the TDD (Section 9.1.5) based on EPA’s review of onsite recycling systems at the DEN and Pittsburgh In ternational Airport (PIT). Specifically, EPA states: “Recycling and recovery operations for spent ADF may, in some cases, be able to achieve pollutant reductions equivalent to AFB treatment and could perform as alternative technologies to AFB. Two of these technologies, which EPA evaluated in its sampling program, include mechanical vapor recompression (MVR) followed by distillation used at the DEN and Ultrafiltration (UF)/ reverse osmosis (RO) used at the PIT. The systems EPA evaluated are both used prior to indirect discharge and have not been demonstrated to sufficiently treat ADF - contaminated stormwater prior to direct discharge [emphasis added].” However, these justifications are contradicted by EPA elsewhere in the TDD: • In the description of the syst em at PIT (TDD Section 8.2.3), EPA states “ ... the permeate that contains small amounts of glycol, cBOD and COD can either be discharged to surface water, or to a POTW ...” • In Section 9.1.5, regarding UF/RO technology, EPA acknowledges that “The effluent fr om the UF/RO system contains small amounts of glycol, cBOD, and COD and can either be discharged to surface water or to a POTW for further processing.” • As noted elsewhere, the AFB installation at Albany requires additional treatment prior to direct disch arge. This is in direct contradiction of the quote above from Section 11.3.2.3 of the TDD. As demonstrated previously in our comments, the reality is that some existing onsite recycling facilities, while not designed for direct discharge, produce effluent quality that is within the range of effluent limitations found in airport NPDES permits. For example, at BDL, the average BOD5 of the recycling facility effluent was 46 mg/L over the period between December 2008 and January 2010, well within the permit li mits of many northern tier airports, and far below the effluent design basis for the AFB unit at CAK. The practicality of glycol recycling as an onsite treatment alternative is under - rated. EPA’s characterization of recycling is based on literature citat ions from the 1990s (e.g., Switzenbaum, 1999) and data from 2002

– 2005. The technology has advanced significantly since then, and conclusions drawn from the outdated information do not represent the current state - of - the art. EPA makes the statement that “... onsite recycling can be successful and economically viable at airports that collect large enough volumes of high - concentration ADF - contaminated stormwater.” EPA’s analysis and evaluation of recycling fails to present an accurate description of recycling technology and recognize the potential for partial onsite treatment in conjunction with regional recycling facilities to support smaller airports. The location of the facilities for practical recovery and recycling can be very different from airport to airport. At a large new airport, such as DEN, the magnitude of ADF usage and the opportunity to set aside space520 for a facility during the airport design process may justify placement of an entire processing facility onsite. However, DEN’s situation is the exception rather than the rule, and is not prerequisite to a successful and cost - effective recycling program. At DTW, the volume of usage is very large, but all processing is conducted offsite to take advantage of a nearby l arge industrial evaporation and distillation facility. This too is the exception rather than the rule because few airports are in similar proximity to such a plant. Most commonly, initial processing is conducted at an onsite facility to increase the glycol concentration to the point where transport to a regional facility for final processing is cost - effective. These onsite processing facilities generate an effluent stream that can be suitable for surface water discharge. The data EPA collected during visit s to a limited number of airports where onsite recycling is being conducted does not represent the lowest effluent concentrations that can be routinely obtained by the available technology, only what those systems were designed to produce in the specific c ontext of each airport. In 2009, the Portland International Jetport (PWM) in Portland, ME began construction of a deicing fluid recapture system. This system was the result of an extensive engineering review that was conducted to evaluate all available tec hnologies to treat spent ADF. The Airport selected recycling as the best option to meet environmental program goals. The purpose of the capture and treatment program is to improve water quality in Fore River. The newly constructed facilities will be comple te by October 2010 and will allow the Jetport to capture and recycle spent aircraft deicing fluid. Under a contract with the City of Portland, Inland will be installing three MVRs and an RO system as part of an onsite recycling facility. Although this syst em was not originally designed to discharge to surface water, it will be capable of producing effluent quality that would meet the EPA’s proposed COD limitations. Response: See the rationale for selection of AFB technology in the proposed rule at 74 FR 44691 - 44694, and the response to Comment # EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 excerpt Number 4. (code P2_Credit) P2_ANALYSIS - EPA’s analysis of pollution prevention technologies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 17 In the analysis presented here, we h ave chosen to use EPA estimates to demonstrate that MVR systems are more cost - effective than AFB systems. The reason for this choice is three - fold: 1 EPA has attempted to boil a complex question down to a single number to use in their analysis. For example , the cost of operating a MVR system is dependent on many variables, and the resulting cost is usually unique to an airport’s given circumstances. There isn’t a single cost per gallon that is can be meaningfully applied across all airports. We won’t try to offer an alternative to EPA’s estimate because we think their logic in applying the number is flawed. 2 Regardless of whether EPA’s inaccurate estimates or our corrected estimates are used, the outcome of the analysis is the same: MVR is more cost effecti ve than AFB. As discussed above, it is impossible to develop specific point estimates

– however, in some cases we can develop ranges of values that we are confident would be applicable to the majority of airports. In the calculations where we have done thi s, the result supports the same conclusion as when the EPA estimates are used; the magnitude of the difference shrinks, but the advantage remains with the MVR system. 3 Our expertise and our own data allow us to challenge certain EPA estimates, but we don’ t have insight into data held by others. For example, the costs EPA attributes to AFB systems may also be inaccurate, but we don’t have the information to evaluate that. Therefore, we avoid this issue by using EPA generated estimates for all systems. Res ponse: See the rationale for selection of AFB technology in the proposed rule at 74 FR 44691 - 44694, and the response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 excerpt Number 4. (code P2_Credit)521 P2_ANALYSIS - EPA’s analysis of pollution prevention technologies Commen t Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 19 The potential benefits of recovery and recycling of glycol as a method for treating deicing runoff are not acknowledged or considered. Capacity to treat variable waste streams. Recycling technology is flexible and can easily respond to fluctuations in in - feed glycol concentrations. The previously cited BDL data illustrates this flexibility. This benefit was not mentioned anywhere in EPA’s technical analysis. For a biological process, the organisms require a period o f acclimation, and are sensitive to shock changes in concentrations and loads, which requires additional storage tanks and more complex operations to buffer influent flows. On a recycling facility, the operating parameters can be changed to respond immedia tely to variations in influent concentrations. Economic offset from the value of recovered glycol. Unlike destructive biological treatment, spent ADF recycling produces a marketable glycol product. In many cases, if the volume of glycol produced is high en ough, then the revenues generated from the sales of this glycol can be used to offset glycol recovery and management costs at the airport. The value of the glycol recycled at an airport can be calculated and included into cost budgets as they are developed . When service companies bid for recycling services, the value of the glycol is often incorporated into their proposal and reflected in a reduced management service fee to the airport. At large airports, such as DEN, where there are significant volumes of glycol recovered on an annual basis the service fees are minimal because the revenue produced from glycol recycling covers almost all operating expenses. In the case of DEN, glycol recycling on average saves the airport over $1 million in deicing managemen t operating expenses per year. Other treatment technologies would not offer this offset in costs. De minimis air quality emissions. The proposed onsite AFB systems and electricity generation facilities would likely require airports to obtain construction a nd operation permits under federal, and in some cases state and local, air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory programs. It’s not clear if EPA has incorporated these requirements in their analysis of BAT costs and feasibility. In contrast, membra ne and MVR processes used for onsite recycling would not typically trigger permitting requirements, because they result in few, if any, direct emissions impacts. Significantly lower net carbon dioxide emissions compared to destructive treatment of glycol. The TDD provides a cursory analysis of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions impacts of AFB treatment systems, on page 12 - 8, after the technology was selected. EPA estimates potential CO2 emissions for AFB treatment associated with the 60% ADF capture scenari o at 17,300 tons/yr. Although EPA acknowledges that CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas (GHG) attributed to climate change, EPA indicates the estimated emissions are “very small relative to other sources” and concludes that they are negligible. Since August 2009, when the proposed rule was published, EPA and the administration have publicly indicated concern regarding GHG emissions and intention to increase GHG - related regulations. The GHG emissions associated with the proposed BAT deserve additional evaluati on. AFB treatment systems not only directly produce GHG emissions, such as CO2 and methane; they also result in destruction of recyclable glycol products. The GHG emissions associated with virgin propylene glycol (PG) production, most commonly from petrole um feed stocks, should be added to the emissions attributed to operating the AFB treatment systems. These total emissions can then be compared to the emissions that directly result from onsite recovery and concentration of recovered ADF to a re usable prod uct. Attachment C presents this comparison in detail. The results show the total CO2 emissions cost for the proposed AFB technology is more than 15 times that of onsite recycling and product concentration. Recycling offers great advantages in GHG emissions reduction and results in a reusable petroleum - based product, both of which are consistent with national priorities for reduced GHG emissions and sustainable practices. Scalability and Flexibility. Recycling is scalable and can be more cost effective than other treatment technologies when considering storage and size requirements to accommodate airport growth. When BDL tied the ramp areas surrounding the terminal gates into the spent ADF collection system it increased the surface area of the collection syst em, and as a result increased volumes of dilute fluid that required treatment. Instead of the airport committing additional capital to build new million gallon capacity storage tanks, the airport sought to have treatment capability522 increased. Inland met th e increased capacity needs through installation of an additional concentrator and UF system within the existing facility footprint and building structures. Response: See the rationale for selection of AFB technology in the proposed rule at 74 FR 44691 - 44694, and the response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 excerpt Number 4. (code P2_Credit) P2_ANALYSIS - EPA’s analysis of pollution prevention technologies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 149 (ATA) EPA’s Analytical Methodology Does Not Adequately Analyze Pollution Prevention First, the Agency must change its approach to pollution prevention and consider the extent to which the selection of glycol collection BAT and glycol treatment BAT serves to maintain (and perhaps even increase) glyc ol usage levels. The Proposed Rule would require airports and airlines to invest heavily in technologies that depend on high levels of glycol usage, and thus would reinforce rather than prevent glycol use at current levels. This violates EPA’s clear statut ory duty under both the CWA and the PPA to recognize and facilitate pollution prevention practices. It also is not consistent with the Agency’s affirmed policies. In fact, EPA recognizes that the ELG program presents a unique opportunity to encourage pollu tion prevention: “Unlike other CWA tools, effluent guidelines provide the opportunity to promote pollution prevention and water conservation.”391 [FOOTNOTE:391 EPA, Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan at 1 - 2 (October 2009).] Factually, EPA’s proposed approach both ignores the potential of pollution prevention practices to reduce ADF discharges and reinforces existing usage of ADF by selecting BAT for collection and treatment that relies on high levels of glyc ol to be effective. For example, the selected technology basis for the proposed ADF Treatment BAT, AFBRs, requires the use of glycol. In vernacular terms, EPA concludes glycol eating bugs reflect the “best” technology available; however, if you stop feed ing the bugs what they need (glycol) in sufficient quantity, they die. In addition, the efficacy of the model collection technologies upon which EPA has based its ADF Collection BAT standards is affected by ADF usage levels. Generally, as the amount of flu id used in association with a CDP decreases, the percentage of fluid available for capture decreases (because a larger percentage is “lost” due to dispersion and evaporation). Likewise, for GRVs, lower amounts of fluid are more difficult to collect. Moreov er, if the amount collected is measured in terms of oxygen demand, unless the methodology for determining whether the collection standard is met is adjusted accordingly, using fluids with lower oxygen demand profiles will make it more difficult to achieve the collection standard. Thus, regulated entities will be discouraged from employing pollution prevention measures because it will be harder to meet the collection standards established on the basis of EPA’s model technologies that focus exclusively on cap turing ADF after its application. Response: See response (P2_Credit) Comment # EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 excerpt Number 4. The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports. P2_ANALYSIS - EPA ’s analysis of pollution prevention technologies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 150 By allowing

– and in some cases, requiring

– permit writers to ignore the pollution elimination effects of pollution prevention practices, EPA provides a powe rful disincentive to airports and airlines considering investment in those proven technologies. Far from enabling the regulated community to employ pollution prevention on an equal footing with other control techniques, the Proposed Rule places the regulat ed523 community in the position of adopting pollution prevention with no assurance that the investment will be appropriately recognized by permit writers. The Proposed Rule would require adherence to numeric collection standards that will be more difficult to meet when pollution prevention practices are employed. Conferring authority upon permit writers to accept or reject the known impacts of pollution prevention practices also exceeds the statutory authority under which EPA promulgates ELGs. To the extent th at permit writers use this express authority to deny credit, EPA effectively empowers those permit writers to deprive the regulated community of the option of using pollution prevention technologies. By empowering permit writers to withhold that recognitio n, EPA effectively allows them to ban the use of pollution prevention practices. Such power to dictate technologies is not conferred upon EPA by the CWA and, thus, cannot be conferred by EPA on individual permit writers. Response: See response (P2_Credi t) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 excerpt Number 4. A "no" from the permit writer just means that factually/technically the permit writer has found that the P2 technology does not work to achieve the limit. First, that's a finding that the permittee can chal lenge if it so chooses. Second, in any event, finding that a specific technology does not work (based on a technical record), so cannot be used to demonstrate compliance with the limit, is not "dictating" which technology (among those that actually work) does have to be used. Under the final rule, all this is relevant only to new sources. P2_ANALYSIS - EPA’s analysis of pollution prevention technologies Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 151 Finally, EPA is under an affirmative obligation to consider and facilitate the adoption of source reduction techniques. That obligation flows from the PPA, which affirmatively established as a national policy of the U.S. that “pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible.”392 In order to achieve this, EPA is directed “to develop and implement a strategy to promote source reduction.”393 As a part of this strategy, the Administrator is further specifically directed to “ensure that the Agency considers the effect of its existing and proposed programs on source reduction efforts and . . . review regulations of the Agency prior and subsequent to their proposal to determine their effect on source reduction”394 and to “facilitate the ado ption of source reduction techniques by businesses.”395 These 1990 mandates are wholly consistent with the overall goal of the CWA, which is to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters.396 More particularly, the PPA follows on and makes more concrete the broad mandate of the 1972 statute to, after careful investigation, develop comprehensive programs for preventing, reducing, or eliminating the pollution of the navigable waters in cooperation with other Federal agencies, State water pollu tion control agencies, interstate agencies, and affected industries and municipalities.397 The Proposed Rule does not recognize these affirmative obligations or implement these clear congressional mandates. The aviation industry has a long and successful h istory of exploring and implementing practices that, consistent with ensuring the safety of the flight operations, reduce the amount of ADF employed during ground deicing. Examples of this include pioneering of hot air deicing, hybrid deicing vehicles, enc losed bucket deicing vehicles, systems both on deicing vehicles and at stationary dispensaries that blend ADF to temperature, and the exploration of infrared deicing systems. Each of these, employed at an airport at which its use is both safe and appropria te, can reduce the amount of ADF necessary to ensure safe flight operations. Leading up to the Proposal, EPA studied aircraft deicing practices for over 15 years 398 and is aware of the variety and efficacy of these practices.399 EPA is also aware that the use of pollution prevention techniques, while contributing to the reduction of overall pollutant discharge loads, degrades the performance of EPA’s model treatment technologies so that these approaches cannot, when used in tandem, comply with the proposed collection standards. To now impose collection standards that effectively preclude the use of pollution prevention techniques is contrary to the intent of the Clean Water Act and will institutionalize current usage levels rather than encourage source redu ction. EPA’s failure to address and support pollution prevention must be remedied.524 Response: See response (P2_Credit) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 excerpt Number 4. P2_CREDIT - Pollution prevention credits Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1194 - 2 (NYSDEC) Please provide additional information regarding EPA’s interpretation for ADF volume reduction credits and compliance demonstration when an alternative pollution prevention technology, such as an infrared deicing system, is used for a portion of t he airport departures. If the pollution prevention technology was in existence prior to promulgations of this rule, would a credit still apply? How would the prior existence of this pollution prevention technology impact the baseline ADF volume calculation to determine the 60% collection requirement. Response: As the final rule does not establish uniform aircraft deicing discharge control requirements for existing sources, the comment about existing pollution prevention technologies is not applicable. S ee also Comment (P2_Credit) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, excerpt number 4. P2_CREDIT - Pollution prevention credits Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208 - 14 (PHL Airport) EPA should consider that the documented application of source reduction technologies and staff training, which are already in practice, be allowed as a "credit" toward the requirement for recovery as part of the targeted discharge reduction and to incentiv ize glycol conservation by individual airport operators. Some airports have already introduced technologies such as glycol blending based on ambient temperature and use of forced air, to significantly reduce glycol application while still safely deicing ai rcraft. Response: See response to (P2_Credit) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, Excerpt Number: 4 P2_CREDIT - Pollution prevention credits Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208 - 15 EPA should consider "credits" for application of technologies such as g lycol recycling and use of glycol rich stormwater runoff in production of biomethane fuel. Response: See response to (P2_Credit) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, Excerpt Number: 4 P2_CREDIT - Pollution prevention credits Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1 212.1 - 4 (ANC Airport) Current rule does little to encourage the use of pollution prevention through alternate technologies. Should allow pollution prevention "credit" to offset requirements somehow. Realize this is difficult as each deicing event is di fferent and each alternative technology has different offsetting glycol savings525 dependant on the deicing event. Response: See response to (P2_Credit) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, Excerpt Number: 4 P2_CREDIT - Pollution prevention credits Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 - 4 (MSP Airport) The application of credits toward the collection requirement for pollution prevention methods should be mandatory and not at the discretion of the permit writer. As currently drafted, the language included in the ELG provides little to no incentive for airlines or entities that apply ADF to seek methods for ADF source reduction, which is arguably the most effective means of reducing impacts on the environment. Any efforts undertaken by airport tenants and/or ai rports to reduce ADF application through new methods or technologies should be credited against the collection requirement. For instance, if a deicing entity invests in low - flow ADF application nozzles this will reduce the amount of Type I ADF utilized dur ing deicing events when those technologies are employed. The reduced ADF usage will mean less ADF dripping off the wing/fuselage and less potential for this ADF to flow from the pavement into catch basins. It is likely that the collection efficiency of the system will be reduced through the use of low - flow nozzles; however, the total amount of ADF applied and the amount of ADF potentially impacting the environment is greatly reduced. From the perspective of ELG compliance, this type of source reduction woul d jeopardize compliance with achieving collection goals and is a disincentive if credits toward the collection requirement are not applied. Section §449.20(b)(2)(C) should be re - drafted to mandate incorporation of credits toward the collection requirements for pollution prevention efforts undertaken by the permittee (or deicing entities conducting deicing operations at the permittee's airport). The EPA must encourage source reduction strategies to the greatest extent possible to reduce the potential for env ironmental impacts. Response: Today's rule establishes discharge requirements for new sources associated with direct discharge of collected ADF. See the preamble for a discussion on how EPA selected the technology basis for NSPS and be aware that an air port is not required to use the technologies that were used to set numeric limits, any technology that the facility can demonstrate will meet these requirements is acceptable. Today’s final new source performance standards include a provision by which any volume of ADF reduction stemming from a pollution prevention technology or practice may be applied to the amount of ADF an airport is required to collect. For example, under the 60% collection requirement, if an airport used 100,000 gallons of available A DF and demonstrated a 20,000 gallons reduction of available ADF through the use of forced air deicing, then the airport would only be required to collect and treat 40,000 gallons of ADF. (40,000 collected + 20,000 reduction = 60,000 gallons = 60% of 100,00 0 gallons). See the implementation section of the final preamble for additional discussion on applying the pollution prevention credit. EPA notes that dischargers that wish to utilize this provision must provide quantitative data to demonstrate that the pollution prevention approach achieves reductions in volumes of, or the quantity of pollutants in, available ADF (see 40 CFR 449.20(a)(2)(ii)). EPA’s record for this final rule does not have sufficient data to support pollution prevention credits for tech nologies or practices which do not reduce the volumes of available ADF. This is due, in part, to a lack of baseline data on existing ADF formulations, resulting in an inability to determine the true extent of pollutant reduction of a new formulation. How ever, the final rule does not preclude such demonstrations if the data become available. Additionally, EPA’s record for the final rule also does not have sufficient data to determine, on a national level, the reduction in ADF from a pollution prevention t echnology (or suite of technologies), nor the526 factors upon which to base the determination. However, based on discussions with the airport and airline associations, EPA believes such information may be available for certain practices and that they are wor king towards developing quanti t ative information on associated reductions. See section IV.D.3 of the final rule preamble regarding the industry's voluntary P2 program. As EPA determined aircraft deicing discharge controls at existing airports are appropr iately determined on a case - by - case BPJ basis, the Agency is leaving the final determination of reduction from a technology or practice up to the permit authority's discretion, upon demonstration of glycol reduction from the permittee. This must be determ ined on a site - specific basis; there is insufficient information in the record to determine what level of credit for P2 reductions should be allowed on a national basis. While defining an acceptable means of demonstrating glycol reduction is in the hands of the permit authority, EPA anticipates that one likely manner of demonstrating ADF reduction would be to compare deicing an aircraft using traditional deicing means, and during the same weather conditions (likely at the same time), to deicing a different aircraft using the pollution prevention technology, and evaluating the difference in glycol used. This determination will apply to any pollution prevention technology, including those installed prior to this NSPS. See also section X.C.3 of the preamble for examples of P2 credit calculations. P2_CREDIT - Pollution prevention credits Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 20 (ATA) Require Credit for Pollution Prevention under All Demonstration Techniques Consideration of the effect of pollution prevention practices would not be authorized under Proposed §§ 449.20(b)(1) and (3), and would be left to the permit writer’s discretion und er Proposed § 449.20(b)(2). As written, the Proposed Rule is not consistent with the Agency’s explanation of the intended effect: As is the case for any effluent guideline containing numeric effluent limitations, a facility would be able to use any combina tion of wastewater treatment technologies and pollution prevention strategies at the facility to meet effluent limitations.68 We agree that this should be the effect of any ELG, but it is not the effect of the ELG as proposed. Airports would not be able to use pollution prevention strategies except under Proposed § 449.20(b)(2) and only then solely at the permit writer’s discretion. Thus, §§ 449.20(b)(1), (b)(2)(C) and (3) must be modified to require permit writers to consider pollution prevention measures and provide appropriate credit towards compliance with the collection standard.69 Response: See response to (P2_Credit) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, Excerpt Number: 4. In response to the comment that this final rule does not provide the usual flexibilit y for the permittee to choose any technology it wants to meet the specific permit limitations, we disagree. As usual, a permittee is free to use any technology it wants to meet the permit requirement for ADF collection. But if a permittee wants the permi t requirement itself for ADF collection to be reduced below what the rule otherwise requires, based on the use of P2, that’s a separate matter. The permit writer must make a determination case - by case as to what reductions in ADF the permittee has demonst rated based on the use of P2. P2_CREDIT - Pollution prevention credits Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 84 (Port Authority NY&NJ) The Port Authority supports the Proposed Rule’s reference to the use of alternative pollution prevention527 technol ogy. However, EPA provides no real alternative or credit for pollution prevention in its collection standard. Measuring the reduction achieved “relative to current practices at the facility” would be extremely difficult. As we have mentioned previously, ai rcraft deicing fluid use varies widely from season to season. Our airports may use twice as much, or half as much fluid in one year as in the next. These variations are due predominantly to the weather, but may also be due to other factors (such as number of operations and aircraft mix). We would not be able to measure the reduction in aircraft deicing fluid use because the baseline for comparison is too variable. In addition, the measurement of reduction in use, as in use under current practices, would rel y on airline data, which the Port Authority cannot assure are accurate. EPA must reconsider and recraft any future deicing ELG proposal to account for pollution prevention, not discourage it. Response: See response to (P2_Credit) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 121 6.1, Excerpt number : 4 P2_CREDIT - Pollution prevention credits Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 125 EPA should recognize and give credit to flexible practices that could reduce (or have reduced) the amount of aircraft deicing fluid applied. The Proposed Rule inadequately fostered “pollution prevention” technologies, and forced permitting authorities away from best management practices as reasonable compliance methods. Pollution prevention and best management practices should be a central focus of any future ELG. Response: See response to (P2_Credit) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, Excerpt Number: 4 P2_CREDIT - Pollution prevention credits Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1237.1 - 3 (Octagon) Octagon has reviewed the EPA’s proposed ELG and NSPS for airport use of ADFs and feel that the EPA should give credit for not only the pollution prevention p rocedures that would require the recapture of ADFs, but also for the technologies that reduce the discharge of the actual pollutants such as COD or BOD, and toxic additives, by using more environmentally - friendly substitute chemicals. Response: See resp onse to (P2_Credit) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, Excerpt Number: 4 P2_FACTORS - EPA should set factors for pollution prevention credits Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1220 - 3 (MN PCA) Additional rule clarification or guidance is being requested for the ADF reduction credit determinations. If a Permittee proposes to utilize an alternative technology under 449.20(b)(2)(i)(C) to obtain a reduction in the collection requirement [449.10], what is an appropriate means of determining the credit to assign t he technology? It would be helpful to have this question addressed thoroughly in a guidance document. Example: If a Permittee proposes to utilize hot air deicing procedures, how much collection reduction will be assigned to each incident? Could this credit be applied based upon a published report findings extrapolated to the airport’s typical operations or must the credit be determined by utilizing actual data528 collected at the airport? Given the variability of the approaches to the determination of the cred it calculations some additional direction is necessary. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, excerpt number 4. (P2_Credit) P2_FACTORS - EPA should set factors for pollution prevention credits Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 21 (ATA) Identify Factors that Permit Writers Must Consider to Reasonably Account for Benefits of Pollution Prevention Practices To ensure regulatory consistency and fairness, EPA must provide binding, unifying guidance to permit writers regarding poll ution prevention in the body of the ELG. Factors such as the performance characteristics of individual pollution prevention measures, the circumstances that affect their efficiency of operation, their impact on the model collection technologies where those are in use -- all of these are complex subjects that will be foreign to most permit writers but about which EPA has learned a great deal in the course of this rulemaking. Requiring a hundred or more individual permit writers to replicate EPA’s learning and then setting them off without guidance to calculate pollution prevention credits will lead to regulatory inconsistency and unfairness. In addition, it would result in an ELG that is anything but nationally uniform in its application, a result inimical to the CWA and ELG program. These outcomes are unacceptable to both the Agency and the aviation industry. One possible solution is for the Agency to incorporate guidance in the ELG itself that provides permit writers with a common starting point as they calc ulate the benefits of pollution prevention practices. ATA of course recognizes that site to - site variations among airports may make it difficult to develop a rigid formula that appropriately recognizes pollution prevention practices in all locations. We ar e, however willing to work with EPA to evaluate such a formula if that is the Agency’s preference. An alternative approach may be to include a list of the key factors that should be a part of any calculation of pollution prevention credits. While not as de finitive as a formula, these factors could help to make permit writers aware of key issues and require that they reasonably consider those issues as they determine the quantum of credit, if any, merited by a given suite of pollution prevention measures. Su ch factors might include: • The range of performance expected of the pollution prevention measure, and the data sources available for estimating actual performance at a particular site; • Savings, if any, in total anticipated ADF discharge (or its BOD/COD equivalent) as a result of the pollution prevention practice; • Consider use of BOD/COD equivalent of ADF thresholds to account for future adoption of low - BOD/COD fluids; • Establishment of a baseline year or condition against which to measure pollution p revention benefits (2005 conditions may be appropriate given that was the last year from which EPA collected data in support of the Proposed Rule); and • The impact, if any, of the pollution prevention measure on any other collection technologies in use, a long with an appropriate means of adjusting the collection standard to account for such effects. Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, excerpt number 4. (P2_Credit). EPA agrees that the “key factors” listed in the comment, while not a n all - inclusive list, generally represent the types of factors that would be relevant to a permit writer’s decision on how much P2 reduction is demonstrated, to the extent any one of these factors is relevant to a particular case. However EPA does not hav e sufficient data on P2 technologies to provide specific guidance to permit authorities.529 P2_INCENTIVE - Rule needs greater incentives for pollution prevention Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 84 (ACI) Deicing Product Advances are Expected to Achieve Environmental Benefits Not Accounted for by the Proposed Rule. Airports and airlines have continuously worked with manufacturers of deicing products to ensure a sustained advancement in the reduction of the environmental impacts of those products. As proposed, the rule neither accounts for nor encourages such advances. As the environmental performance of these products continues to improve, the associated benefits will not be accounted for under the proposed structure of the rule. Response: See response (P2_Credit) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 excerpt Number 4. P2_INCENTIVE - Rule needs greater incentives for pollution prevention Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 152 The Proposed Rule Does Not Adequately Encourage Pollution Prevention P ractices. EPA’s Proposed Rule is flawed because it fails to account for pollution prevention. The industry is actively engaged in a wide variety of pollution prevention practices and research, particularly relating to ADF formulations and application. EPA recognizes this fact, but fails to embrace or address it within its proposed standards. EPA asserts part of its legal authority for the proposed rule is the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (“PPA”), 42 USC §§ 13101 et seq.131 The Agency then reviews indust ry pollution prevention practices, such as infrared deicing systems, forced air/hot air deicing systems, product substitution, etc.132 However, EPA offers no benefits or encouragement for undertaking pollution prevention activities within its proposed ADF collection standards. While EPA may be unsure about determining how a credit system would work within its proposal, the net result is contrary to the PPA and EPA’s past ELG rulemakings. Consistent with past precedent, EPA should propose a best management a lternative to any numeric standard to allow for progressive pollution prevention activities at airports. Currently, airports are already becoming leaders with regard to pollution prevention, sustainability, green building and other emerging environmental t echnologies/procedures. EPA’s proposed rule is noticeably contrary to that trend. EPA must revisit these issues to address the serious flaws in its proposal that inhibit pollution prevention practices. Response: See response (P2_Credit) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 excerpt Number 4. P2_INCENTIVE - Rule needs greater incentives for pollution prevention Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 18 (ATA) Pollution Prevention The Proposed Rule takes insufficient account of the potential be nefits of pollution prevention techniques and focuses instead on collection and treatment systems that require continued, substantial use of glycol - based ADF products.61 While the Agency generally may be free to rely upon any model treatment technology tha t it can support, it nonetheless is obliged by law to consider the impact of proposed rules such as this on source reduction efforts, and to craft those rules to facilitate the adoption of source control technologies where available and, at a minimum, to a void penalizing facilities that elect to use such alternative technologies to achieve compliance with the rule’s standards.530 Response: See response (P2_Credit) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 excerpt Number 4. P2_INCENTIVE - Rule needs greater incentives for pollution prevention Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 19 Source reduction technologies and practices have been and continue to be important tools for the reduction of ADF discharges from aircraft deicing. EPA catalogued many of these in its TD D, 64 including blend - to - temperature systems; forced air and hybrid deicing trucks; new, lower - toxicity deicing products; and one new Type I ADF that employs 1,3 - propanediol rather than propylene glycol as its freeze point depressant.65 Progress in this ar ena is so active, however, that another ADF has entered the market since the TDD was prepared: Octagon’s EcoFlo Type I fluid, which exerts 25 - 35% less oxygen demand.66 This product is already being used by an ATA airline at BOS, LGA, BWI, IAD, and EWR, and is being tested by other ATA airlines. In addition, testing has commenced on new ice - phobic wing coatings with the potential to drastically reduce the need for any form of ADF.67 Following on the heels of industry - led efforts to develop the virtually non - toxic Type I fluids that now dominate the market, these continuing advances demonstrate this industry’s commitment to and success at developing workable pollution prevention technologies. In order to maintain this impressive progress, it is critical that a ny final ELG at least place those existing and evolving practices on an even footing with its traditional model collection and treatment technologies. Otherwise, the ELG will stand as a disincentive to the significant investments necessary to achieve pollu tion prevention and, inadvertently, will reward decisions to backslide into technologies that are dependent for their operation on continued high levels of glycol usage. Response: See response (P2_Credit) E PA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 excerpt Number 4. P2 _INCENTIVE - Rule needs greater incentives for pollution prevention Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 70 This issue highlights the inherent pollution prevention disincentive the proposed regulatory structure creates. Airports are discouraged from collecting any additional ADF beyond that required because of the additional storage and treatment capacity and costs associated with having to treat more ADF than is required to be collected. Response: See response (P2_Credit) EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 excerpt Number 4. POTW_IMP - Deicing stormwater impacts to POTWs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1206 - 1 While the proposed Ai r port Deicing Standards do not contain limits for indirect dischargers, I am concerned that it ma y still impact the pretreatment program. The effluent limitations for direct dischargers may encourage some airports to become indirect dischargers, and many Control Authorities do not have the technical information available to know how to properly permit and adequately control the discharges from airport deicing activities. Additionally, the way a POTW may need to control airport deicing discharges may vary between different parts of the country, based on the frequency that deicing occurs in531 that region. I request that EPA provide additional technical resources aimed at helping state and local staff permit and control potential airport deicing activities that may be discharged to the sewer. This document(s) would use plain language to identify pollutants a nd potential problems. I imagine that the document would be similar in size and scope to the Small Entity Compliance Guide for the Centralized Waste Treatment rule or the Permit Guidance Document for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning rule, with the aud ience being state and local regulators. Response: For the reasons explained in the final preamble, EPA did not establish PSES or PSNS for this industrial category. EPA is aware that some airports make arrangements to send their deicing wastewater disch arges to publicly owned treatment plants (POTWs). POTWs, of course, are not required to accept such wastes if they are determined to be incompatible, in excess, or overly toxic which could thereby cause upsets or pass - through. POTWs can require treatabilit y studies to be done by the industrial user (the airport) prior to agreeing to accept the wastewater. Even if the wastewater is accepted, a POTW can establish local limits that the airport must comply with to ensure problems do not happen in the treatment system. EPA notes that such requirements would reflect implementation of 40 CFR Part 403 and guidance on implementing 40 CFR Part 403 is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Finally, EPA notes that the final rule did not establish uniform BAT require ments for aircraft deicing discharges for existing airports. Such requirements will be established on a site specific BPJ basis. As such, this rule will not increase indirect discharges from this industry. POTW_IMP - Deicing stormwater impacts to POTWs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1207.1 - 2 We believe that airports that are required to employ treatment to meet the proposed effluent standards will seek out options that are the most cost effective. In many cases, it will be more cost effective to d irect wastewater to a local Publicly - Owned Treatment Works (POTW), than to operate and maintain a treatment plant for seasonal use. We prefer this option as well, provided that the POTW has the capacity and knowledge to provide proper treatment. We are con cerned that the proposal seems to underestimate the pressure that will be placed on POTWs to accept this wastewater due to the restrictions on direct discharges. Response: EPA is aware that some airports make arrangements to send their deicing wastewater discharges to publicly owned treatment plants (POTWs). POTWs, of course, are not required to accept such wastes if they are determined to be incompatible, in excess, or over ly toxic which could thereby cause upsets or pass - through. POTWs can require treatability studies to be done by the industrial user (the airport) prior to agreeing to accept the wastewater. Even if the wastewater is accepted, a POTW can establish local lim its that the airport must comply with to ensure problems do not happen in the treatment system. EPA agrees with the commenter that, in some cases, it may be more cost effective to discharge wastewater to a local POTW and the requirements associated with t he regulatory options evaluated for the final rule would not have prevented that. However, for all of the reasons stated above and because EPA also does not know if local POTWs have the capacity to accept airport wastewaters, in evaluating the costs assoc iated with the regulatory options for today’s final rulemaking, EPA included costs for all affected dischargers to treat their wastewaters with the technology basis for direct discharge. Finally, EPA notes that the final rule does not establish uniform B AT requirements for aircraft deicing discharges for existing airports. Such requirements will be established on a site specific BPJ basis. As such, this rule will not increase indirect discharges from this industry.532 POTW_IMP - Deicing stormwater impacts to POTWs Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1207.1 - 4 ADF wastewater presents many challenges for POTWs. The enclosed report describes the problems encountered at the Downriver Treatment Facility (DRTF), which accepts ADF wastewater from the Detroit Met ropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW). [See DRTF report that follows comment 10 below titled: achieving effluent phosphorous limits...wastewater] The treatment plant experienced viscous bulking due to a nutrient imbalance that occurred during the months tha t ADF was accepted. This issue has been resolved, but initially this discharge contributed to interference resulting in violations of the POTW's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit limits. The POTW currently monitors the primary and fina l effluents continuously for soluble phosphorus (and ammonia N). In addition, the POTW revised its treatment system to remove phosphorus at a later stage, rather than from the raw wastewater. The airport also made significant changes in order to segregate the wastewater, capture and recycle the most concentrated ADF wastewater, and control the amount and concentration of wastewater discharged to the POTW and directly to surface waters. It is estimated that during the 2008 and 2009 season 59 percent of the t otal ADF was captured and recycled, 13 percent was discharged to the DRTF, 3 percent was discharged to surface water, and 25 percent was unaccounted for losses (see enclosure). [See submittal FDMS# 1207.3 provided by commenter for 3 graphs summarizing COD, BOD discharge to potw and deicing fluid fate] Response: EPA is aware that some airports make arrangements to send their deicing wastewater discharges to publicly owned treatment plants (POTWs). POTWs, of course, are not required to accept such wastes if they are determined to be incompatible, in excess, or overly toxic which could thereby cause upsets or pass - through. POTWs can require treatability studies to be done by the industrial user (the airport) prior to agreeing to accept the wastewater. Even if the wastewater is accepted, a POTW can establish local limits that the airport must comply with to ensure problems do not happen in the treatment system. EPA also believes that the Down River Trea t ment Facility (DRTF) cited by the commenter, may make an excellent case study on the problems a POTW may have when accepting deicing wastewater, and what can be done about it by the POTW operator themselves. Also see the final preamble for additional discussion of why EPA did not establish PSES or PSNS in today ’s regulation. PSES - EPA should develop PSES Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1207.1 - 3 and EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1207.3 - 1 (Mich. DNRE) During review of an effluent guideline, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has the responsibility to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards that restrict pollutant discharges from facilities that discharge wastewater indirectly through sewers flowing to POTWs. We believe that the USEPA has not sufficiently addressed this . The USEPA states that they are not aware of any current problems with discharges to POTWs and use that as justification not to propose pretreatment standards. This ignores historical information to the contrary. [See submittal provided by commenter for 3 graphs: 2008/2009 DTW discharge to Downriver Treatment Facility (DRTF); 2007, 2008/2009 deicing fluid fate.] Response: See section V.D of the final rule preamble, "PSES and PSNS."533 PSES - EPA should develop PSES Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1207.1 - 5 We believe that other POTWs would benefit from this information. At the very least, best management practices to ensure the proper capture and control of the ADF wastewater should be employed as Pretreatment Standards and Requirements to ensure prop er collection, and disposal of ADF to a POTW. A Pollutant Management Plan including a Slug Control Plan, and a Storm Water Management Plan could be a means to achieve this. The USEPA could help facilitate the acceptance by POTWs by providing guidance and t ools, rather than discounting the problem. Much of the guidance currently exists in other documents regarding slug control and activated sludge bulking and foaming. A fact sheet for POTWs that acknowledges the treatability issues and references the existin g documents and case studies such as the DTW case referenced above, and the Sanitation District No. 1 (on the docket) would be very beneficial. Further, the existing Source Water Protection Practices Bulletin Managing Aircraft and Airfield Deicing Operatio ns to Prevent Contamination of Drinking Water, dated August 2002 needs to be updated (it contains 12 broken Internet links). The Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet Airplane Deicing Fluid Recovery Systems, dated September 1999 should be updated as well. Re sponse: The final rule does not establish uniform ADF collection or treatment requirements for existing sources, for the reasons discussed in the preamble. These requirements will continue to be determined on a BPJ basis. The record for the final rule co ntains information that may help Cont r ol Authorities establish requirements for airports that wish to discharge these wastewaters to a POTW. Further, EPA has published guidance documents to aid Control Authorities in permitting industrial dischargers. Recommendations on updating the 2002 bulletin and 1999 fact sheet are noted. Those matters are outside the scope of this rulemaking. PW_AUTH - Permit writer authority to dictate collection technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 - 2 (MSP A irport) The ELG allows too much discretion for the permit writer to determine the method of compliance with the ADF percent capture requirement. The permittee is the entity that is in the best position to determine which compliance demonstration method is most app ropriate for their facility and should have the ability to direct the permit writer towards a specific compliance demonstration method. Furthermore, with the compliance demonstration method being at the discretion of the director, permittees have limited a bility to predict and plan for how the pending ELG could have an impact on their operations. The permit writer has the discretion to use different ADF collection technologies from those specified within the draft ELG as the draft language is currently writ ten (§449.20(b)(2)). This does not appear to be the intent of the ELG - -- to allow individual permit writers the latitude to circumvent the extensive research and evaluation conducted by the EPA in developing the collection technologies for the ELG. The use of different ADF collection technologies within the context of ELG compliance should be at the request of the permittee seeking compliance through alternative means other than the methods allowed (§449.20(b)(1) GRV/centralized deicing pad use or §449.20(b )(3) applied/collected mass balance approach). Section §449.20 should specifically state that the permit writer shall utilize the compliance demonstration method determined by the permittee to be most appropriate for their specific facility. Response:534 S ee response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform ADF collection or treatment requirements at existing airports). For NSPS, EPA has revised the final rule regarding compliance determination procedures in §449 .20(a). The final rule gives the permittee the discretion to select the compliance procedure, subject to permit authority approval if the permittee chooses to use an alternative technology. EPA determined that approval to use alternative technologies shou ld rest with the permit writer in order to ensure that the permittee has made an adequate demonstration that the alternative technology will achieve the percent collection requirement in the permit. (In the proposed rule, the requirement was, "the Directo r shall select one of the following three methods and specify it in the permit...") See also response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1248 - 3 (code Comp_Demo) PW_AUTH - Permit writer authority to dictate collection technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 5 (ATA) The fact that ELG standards are implemented through the states acting pursuant to the authority of state law compounds the problem. State permit writers lack expertise in matters of airport/aircraft safety and are unfamiliar with the c omplexity and sensitivity of aircraft operations within the NAS. To pursue such a scheme will inject uncertainty and unpredictability into the regulatory scheme and adversely affect the public’s right to safe and efficient air travel. More importantly, sta te permit writers, certainly when acting under the auspices of state law, 22 do not have authority to affect aircraft operations either in the air or on the ground. Thus, not only are ELG technology - based standards are fatally flawed in this context becaus e they are based on a review of technologies that are necessarily deployed only after careful study and reconciliation of site - specific safety and operational complexities, but because they are implemented through state authorities who are far removed from the complex safety and operational sphere and, most importantly, without any authority to regulate within that sphere. 22 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b) (state NPDES permitting programs, while approved by EPA, are authorized and operate under state law). 46 of the 5 0 states currently operate EPA - approved NPDES permit programs under the auspices of state law. Response: See essay response in code FAA_CONFLICT. PW_AUTH - Permit writer authority to dictate collection technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 15 Eliminate Permit Writer Authority to Dictate Collection Technology and Means of Documenting Compliance with Collection Standard The Proposed Rule affords permit writers the authority to dictate collection technologies and t he means by which individual facilities demonstrate compliance with the proposed collection standard. In both cases, that authority must be eliminated in any final rule. a. Proposed Section 449.20(b)(2)(i)(A) Proposed Section 449.20(b)(2)(i)(A) provides th at “ . . . the Director, on a case - by - case basis, may require: (A) The use of a different ADF collection technology from the technologies specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; . . ..” This delegation of authority is impermissible. EPA has long bee n clear that an ELG that imposes numeric standards does not dictate technology choices, but rather establishes performance standards that the regulated community may meet by means of its own choosing.58 In addition to violating this precept of the ELG Prog ram, the proposed language also purports to authorize permit writers to dictate that specific airfield modifications be performed, placing those permit writers’ authority squarely in conflict with the FAA’s primary and535 exclusive jurisdiction over the NAS. Finally, permit writers, however well intentioned, are simply not competent to dictate which ADF collection technologies are to be employed by the aviation community and, if they were, the absence of any standards in the ELG limiting their discretion would render this purported delegation of authority an abdication by EPA of its obligation to develop a substantive rule. For all of these reasons, EPA should revise the language of § 449.20(b)(2)(i)(A) to clarify that permit writers do not have authority to di ctate an airport’s or airline’s choice of technology used to comply with collection standard. b. Proposed Section 449.20(b) Similarly, Proposed Section 449.20(b) provides that “ . . . the Director shall select one of the following three methods and specify it in the permit as the required method for the permittee to demonstrate compliance with the percent capture requirements in §449.10 or §449.11 as applicable.” This delegation of authority also should be eliminated. First, the choice of demonstration meth od may be indistinguishable from a directive to use a specific technology if the permit writer selects the methodology described in Proposed § 449.20(b)(1) (use of GRVs or centralized deicing pads, depending upon the Tier of the airport). As described imme diately above, neither EPA nor the permit writer has the power to dictate how a discharger complies with a numeric standard. Second, and more practically, it is the airport and its tenant airlines that are in the best position to determine which demonstrat ion method best suits their needs. In some cases, an empirical approach might be simplest where data on ADF usage and capture can be readily collected. In other cases, the “deemed to comply” method in § 449.20(b)(1) or the tailored technical specifications available under § 449.20(b)(2) may be preferable. Affording the permit holder the opportunity to select the demonstration method of its choice allows these preferences to be honored. Moreover, allowing permittees to elect which method to use in no way red uces the permit writer’s authority to establish specific documentation requirements necessary to ensure that the permittee’s demonstration is credible. For these reasons, EPA should modify Proposed § 449.20(b) to state that the permittee shall elect which of three documentation techniques shall be specified in the permit. Response: See response to 1216.1 #2 (above) (Permittee can now select compliance method, subject to approval by the permit authority when choosing an alternative technology) EPA agre es with the commenter’s statement that “Moreover, allowing permittees to elect which method to use in no way reduces the permit writer’s authority to establish specific documentation requirements necessary to ensure that the permittee’s demonstration is cr edible.” The final rule provides just that: The permittee may elect to use an alternative technology, but only on proper documentation, to the permit writer’s satisfaction and approval, that the alternative technology is demonstrated to meet the applicab le percent collection requirement. PW_AUTH - Permit writer authority to dictate collection technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 18 (AAAE) AAAE objects to the notion that other construction activities, such as improvement of an existing runway, could trigger NSPS. See 74 Fed. Reg. at 44694. Such a broad assertion of authority and permit writer discretion is improper and could have a chilling effect on needed construction projects by forcing smaller airports to have to consider the impacts of being forced into the 60 percent collection requirements and whether there is adequate funding for such incremental costs. Additionally, if EPA insists on NSPS as defined, then they must be very specific regarding the NSPS triggers. As currently defined by EPA, NSPS is too vague Wall Street Journal July 22, 2009 “How a New Runway At O’Hare Makes Travel Easier for All” Scott McCartney regarding other constru ction activities, is open to interpretation by permitting authorities and will result in inconsistent application. Response: See response to 1189.1 #7 (Airport Assn. of ND) (code NSPS_OPPOSE) (New runways are excluded536 from scope of NSPS in final rule) For NSPS, the scope of the final rule is based on the location of the airport and on anticipated departures. For aircraft deicing, the rule requires new sources to collect at least 60 percent of available ADF. See § 449.11. PW_AUTH - Permit writer autho rity to dictate collection technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 55 AAAE also believes that neither the permit writers nor the regulated community are adequately equipped to interpret the sweeping changes of the capture, treatment, monito ring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements of proposed Sections 449.10 and 449.20. The EPA proposes to give permit writers wide latitude in interpreting its requirements and certain aspects of the proposed rule require development of additional technic al guidance. Specifically, the EPA appears to intend to leave the following issues to the future discretion of the permit writers, with only vague guidance: development of technical specifications for centralized deicing pads, (proposed 40 C.F.R. § 449.20( b)(1)(ii); the authority to require on a case - by case basis the use of a different ADF collection technology from the GRV or centralized deicing pads (proposed 40 C.F.R. § 449.20(b)(2); the requirement to monitor periodically, by means deemed acceptable by the Director, and at a frequency determined by the Director, the amount of ADF sprayed and the amount of available ADF collected in order to determine the compliance with the percent capture requirement, (proposed 40 C.F.R. § 449.20(b)(3); the potential a uthority to undertake a case - by - case assessment of whether other types of construction activity for aircraft movement areas constitute a "new source", 74 Fed. Reg. at 44694; the ability to incorporate BMPs into the permit on a facility - by - facility basis, 7 4 Fed. Reg. at 44710. AAAE submits that such provisions should, for the most part, be eliminated given the airport's right to regulatory certainty (e.g. to know when a BMP will be required, what events trigger additional compliance requirements or the leve l of monitoring). Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform ADF collection or treatment requirements for existing airports) and 1216.1 #2 (above) For NSPS, the final rule provisions f or compliance demonstration are structured to allow the permittee to select the collection technology and propose a demonstration method, and then the permit authority determines whether any alternative technologies proposed by the permittee are sufficient to meet regulatory requirements. The permittee must demonstrate that it is operating its chosen ADF collection technology so that it meets the required collection percentage (60%). To demonstrate compliance, the permittee is provided the flexibility eithe r to meet a set of technical specifications -- which mirror FAA requirements -- and forego monitoring, or conduct periodic monitoring and forego the requirement to meet any particular technical specifications. As explained in section X.C. of the preamble, EPA determined that monitoring to determine the effectiveness of an ADF collection system would likely involve some form of mass - balance analysis. However, while the concept and procedures for mass - balance analyses are well documented in scientific textbooks a nd related engineering literature, EPA has not published any methods for these kinds of analyses and is not aware of any technical documentation on these procedures specifically for measuring aircraft deicing wastewater. Moreover, EPA is not aware of any a irport that has conducted a mass - balance analysis either for an NPDES permit application or to demonstrate ongoing compliance, in a manner similar to a discharge monitoring report. Therefore, if an airport prefers to demonstrate compliance by a mass - balanc e analysis, it is appropriate for the airport to formulate a proposed methodology and request approval from the permit authority. As with all NPDES permits, the permit authority determines the required monitoring frequency, per existing permit regulations at 40 CFR 122.48.537 PW_AUTH - Permit writer authority to dictate collection technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 86 (PA NY/NJ) The Proposed Rule states that the “Director” (EPA or authorized permitting authority) shall choose one of the three methods of compliance and specify it in the permit as the required method for the permittee to demonstrate compliance with the proposed coll ection requirement.175 Although we would welcome the ability to work with our permitting authorities to determine a method of compliance, the Proposed Rule does not provide adequate information to guide selection. In particular: (1) The Proposed Rule and s upporting documentation do not provide adequate evidence to demonstrate that deicing pads are feasible at our land - constrained airports. In fact, we have provided substantial evidence to demonstrate that pads are not feasible; (2) The Proposed Rule and sup porting documentation do not provide adequate information regarding alternate technologies or operating specifications that would meet the proposed 60 percent collection requirement. The burden would be placed on the Port Authority to identify such technol ogies or specifications and prove that they met the requirement; (3) The Proposed Rule and supporting documentation do not specify monitoring methods to demonstrate compliance with the collection requirement; and (4) The Proposed Rule and supporting docume ntation do not provide adequate evidence in support of the definition of available aircraft deicing fluid or the proposed 60 percent collection requirement. As a result, EPA has proposed a methodology from which permitting authorities may assign an airport a compliance method that is not technologically, physically, or economically feasible to implement. The only recourse for airports, under such scenarios, would be to challenge the permitting authority in federal court. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform ADF collection or treatment requirements at airports) and response to 1231.1, #55 (AAAE, above) (if airport prefers a mass - balance analysis, it is appropriate for request approval from the permit authority; permit authority determines monitoring frequency). PW_AUTH - Permit writer authority to dictate collection technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 105 (ACI) Because EPA has afforded such substantial discretion to the permitting authorities in deciding how airports must comply with the proposed collection standards, airports with deicing pads may be required to undertake additional infrastructure improvements. EPA has not shown that any airport with deicing pads currently meets the technical specifications in the Proposed Rule, giving the permitting authority the discretion to determine whether the alternative specifications should be mandated. These determinations could change every five years, or when an airpor t must reapply for a new permit. In section II.J.2 we discuss the problems with granting such liberal authority to permitting authorities. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requir ements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports.) PW_AUTH - Permit writer authority to dictate collection technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 148 Permit Writer Discretion EPA recognizes that it has diverted from the histor ic ELG - type approach in its538 proposed Airport Deicing ELGs. It states: EPA is aware that the ADF collection requirement differs from traditional end - of pipe effluent limitations with regard to a mechanism for demonstrating compliance.118 The Agency then des cribes three procedures for demonstrating compliance with the proposed ADF collection standards. EPA implies that it is providing flexibility to airports by providing the three options, however, in fact the Agency is merely outlining the tools available to itself and other authorized permitting authorities to impose on airports a compliance methodology of their choosing. The end result is a compliance scheme that guts some of the core principles of the ELG program and renders airports to be mere pawns of th e NPDES permitting program, potentially stuck flip - flopping back and forth to accommodate various permit writers on five - year permitting cycles. This result is unworkable for airports and an inappropriate regulatory scheme. CWA Section 304(b) sets forth t he process and parameters EPA must consider and follow in developing effluent limitations guidelines.119 In essence, CWA Section 304(b) requires EPA to identify the amount of effluent reduction attainable through the use of best practicable, best conventio nal, and best available technologies, and to “specify factors to be taken into account” in determining pollution control methods that are to be applied to point sources within certain classes or categories.120 These guidelines then direct permitting author ities with regard to effluent limitations to be included in NPDES permits pursuant to CWA Sections 301 and 402. After its assessment of the legislative history of CWA Section 304(b), the Supreme Court found that Congress intended EPA to not only assess the effectiveness of various pollution control methods, but also to “describe the methodology EPA intended to use in the [Section] 301 regulations to determine the effluent limitations for particular plants.”121 [Footnote 121: See E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. T rain, 430 U.S. 112, 130 (1977).] In developing these ELGs, EPA states that it identifies “the best available technology that is economically achievable for that industry and sets regulatory requirements based on the performance of that technology.”122 EPA further recognizes that the “effluent guidelines do not require facilities to install the particular technology identified by EPA; however, the regulations do require facilities to achieve the regulatory standards which were developed based on a particular model technology.”123 EPA’s proposed Airport Deicing ELGs set forth ADF collection standards for two “model” technologies

– centralized deicing pads and glycol recovery vehicles (GRVs)

– with collection standards of 60 and 20 percent, respectively.124 Wit h regard to pads, EPA then sets forth seven minimum criteria for operating pads in order to ensure compliance.125 EPA also sets forth two alternative methods for demonstrating compliance with the 60 percent collection standard; permitting authorities can i dentify alternate technologies that achieve the standard, or permitting authorities can set forth a monitoring scheme that demonstrates the appropriate percent capture of ADF.126 However, contrary to EPA’s statement that facilities will not be forced to in stall EPA’s model technology, in fact EPA (in states in which it remains the permitting authority) and EPA - authorized state permitting entities must decide for the airport which of the three options the airport must employ. The airport’s only recourse, bas ed on the language contained in the proposed Airport Deicing ELG, would be to bring a legal challenge to a permitting authority’s final issuing of the airport’s NPDES permit. Airports subject to the 60 percent collection standard have no part of the decisi on - making process for determining how they will comply with the collection standard. The same basic scheme applies to GRVs and EPA’s proposed 20 percent capture standard. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports.) For NSPS, contrary to the commenter's statement, the permitting authority does not select the mode of compliance, the airport does and the final rule is outlin ing the tools the airport may select in order to comply. The final rule offers multiple alternatives that an airport can select including one not listed as long as the airport demonstrates to the permitting authority's satisfaction that the method will, i n fact, ensure the requirements are met. See response to 1216.1 #2 (above) (Permittee can select method of compliance). EPA also disagrees that the final rule mandates a technology. See response to comment 1226.1 excerpt #4 in the TECH FORCING commen t code category.539 PW_AUTH - Permit writer authority to dictate collection technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 149 EPA’s proposed collection compliance scheme not only conflicts directly with its stated premise that regulated entities no t be forced to use EPA’s model technology, but it also runs counter to the legislative history and conclusions of the Supreme Court in Train.127 [Footnote 127: 430 U.S. 112, 129 (1977).] That Court found CWA Section 304(b) did more than “merely guide” perm itting authorities, but rather more precisely described a methodology for implementing effluent limitations. The Court found that Congress intended for EPA to consider a variety of factors in setting the ELG standards pursuant to CWA Section 304 so that pe rmitting authorities would not have to reconsider those factors but rather rely on “presumptively applicable” effluent limitations for each facility in the ELG category.128 [Footnote 128: See also U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual at 56 (“Once the appr opriate ELGs have been identified, application of the limitations is relatively straightforward since it involves the application of a guideline that has already been technically derived.”).] Hence, while EPA is within its authority to set a particular col lection standard,129 it has exceeded its authority by on the one hand prescribing precise technologies that are intended (but not guaranteed) to achieve that standard, and on the other hand deferring to permitting authorities to either accept that standard or devise one of two open - ended alternate methodologies on their own. In either case, the airport has no input into that process and the end result is a situation that runs counter to the legislative history, Supreme Court findings, and prior ELG rulemaki ngs. Further, EPA’s deference to permitting authorities to decide an appropriate compliance mechanism more closely resembles how effluent standards are derived in the absence of ELGs, through a standard setting process referred to as Best Professional Judg ment (BPJ).130 Congress intended EPA to develop ELGs on a category - by - category basis to replace BPJ in as many permitting situations as possible to create a more consistent permitting scheme. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORC ING). (The final rule does not establish uniform ADF collection or treatment requirements at existing airports). For new sources, the record demonstrates that use of CDPs will achieve the 60% collection rate specified in the final rule on a national basis . As with other effluent guidelines, new source permittees may use other technologies to achieve the 60% collection requirement. But it is within EPA’s discretion to specify ways that the permittee will be required to demonstrate compliance, in these ci rcumstances where traditional end - of - pipe monitoring is not available to show compliance with a collection requirement. Due to the variations that may exist among sites in technologies that the permittee chooses, it is reasonable for the final rule to all ow the permit writer the discretion to evaluate and approve, on a case - by - case basis, whether the alternative technology requested by the permittee will achieve the required collection rate. PW_AUTH - Permit writer authority to dictate collection technolo gy Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 150 By deferring to permitting authorities the power to dictate how airports will have to comply with the various collection standards, EPA has created additional challenges for assessing (and commenting on) the potential impacts of the proposed regulation on the industry. While EPA can calculate appropriate percent reductions to determine estimated benefits to the environment

– which ACI - NA asserts must be recalculated with more accurate data

– the Agency can not accurately assess the cost impact on the industry for achieving those benefits. This is particularly true when EPA itself cannot currently predict how permitting authorities will impose compliance programs on airports that may (and will) differ from540 EP A’s CDP and GRV based options. There may be significantly different cost factors associated with mandating 100 throughput for CDPs or implementation of GRVs in contrast to some alternative monitoring scheme that might demonstrate comparable collection thro ugh some alternative means. Assuming that to be true, EPA cannot predict how permitting authorities might mandate CDP or GRV usage in contrast to more efficient methods. One could argue that such an analysis would entail significant guesswork and would be arbitrary at best. Response: See response to 1216.1 #2 (above) (Permittee can select method of compliance). With respect to compliance costs, EPA disagrees with the commenter. EPA's approach is consistent with the statute and with other effluent gui delines. EPA assumed a facility would chose to comply using the technologies selected as the basis for the regulation and has demonstrated that this is not a barrier to entry for the industry. . To provide flexibility, the final rule allows the permittee to request the use of alternative technologies case - by - case. It is within EPA’s discretion to provide this kind of flexibility in the way a permittee shows compliance with the rule. EPA is not required to demonstrate that an alternative technol o gy deeme d preferable by a permittee does not present a barrier to entry for the permittee or industry as a whole. PW_AUTH - Permit writer authority to dictate collection technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1245 - 12 (MSP Airport) Part XIV.15 Solicitation of Data and Comments - Alternative Technology Provision The EPA specifically requested comments regarding §449.20(b)(2), which allows for an alternative technology provision to be established by the permitting authority. The EPA's solicitation for comment included whether any airport intended to utilize this provision and whether or not this provision was burdensome for permitting authorities. MSP deicing tenants utilize deicing pads, plug and pump, and GRVs to facilitate GISW collection. It is unlikely that, in the near future, MSP will shift all deicing activity to pad - only operations. Therefore, it is, a possibility that the MSP NPDES Permit will use the proposed alternative technology provisions in §449.20(b)(2) to demonstrate compliance. In this manner, the permit writer could evaluate and understand the suite of ADF collection technologies in place at MSP and establish adequate specifications and operating parameters to ensure the various technologies are operated in a manner to comply with the intent of the ELG. This method may be preferable to §449.20(b)(3) as it could reduce sampling burden and mitigate compliance uncertainty that is inherent in effluent limits imposed on storm water discharges whose flow, rates .and discharge water - qualit y characteristics are highly unpredictable due to the influence of weather events. The permitting authority would have the ability to review long term data to determine adequate measures that would indicate the system is being operated in the designed man ner. It would not seem this ELG provision would be over - burdensome on permit authorities as they would likely work with airports and tenants to understand and develop appropriate specifications and operating parameters for inclusion in future NPDES permits . The permittees would have a substantial interest in ensuring the permitting authority had a thorough understanding of the system, thereby assisting the permit authority and reducing some burden. The EPA should maintain this provision in the ELG, not with standing comment #3 made previously within this document. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). EPA has retained the alternative technology provision for NSPS in the final rule at §44 9.20(a)(2), with some reorganization of the subparagraphs. EPA appreciates this commenter’s input that “It would not seem this ELG provision would be over - burdensome on permit authorities as they would likely work with airports and tenants to understand and develop appropriate specifications and operating parameters for inclusion in future541 NPDES permits.” PW_GUIDE - Permit writer guidance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 11 (ANC Airport) How long after aircraft deicing stops on a pad, will a pad be required to keep diversion in place? We recommend 12 hours or less, This is so normal rain events are not captured and treated when there is little or no ADF on the pad. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The fin al rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports) While the technology basis for the NSPS ADF collection requirements is deicing pads, the final rule does not specify the time period in which diversion must be in place. PW_GUIDE - Permit writer guidance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 13 What type of emulsifier is the rule looking at? Not sure what it would be other than water? Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCI NG (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports) T he final rule does not include technical specifications on operation of a GCV, including the use of an emulsifier. PW_GUIDE - Permit writer guidance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 19 For airports required to have pads, how will removal of the snow from the pad be allowed between aircrafts? Snow removal will need to be done to ensure that aircraft can taxi in and out of the pad. This will be an issue during non - peak times when the deicing fluids from the aircraft will not melt the snow that is in place or currently falling. Will there be a problem with snow that is removed from the pad since it will likely contain some ADF? Will this be an allowable practice under option in Section 449.20(b)(1)(ii)? Same issue with snow removal noted in comment 19 will also be an issue with GRV operations also. Will this be an allowable practice under option in Section 449.20(b)(1)(ii)? Res ponse: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports) While the technology basis for the NSPS ADF collection requirements is deicing pads, the final rule does speak to or limit snow removal from the pad. PW_GUIDE - Permit writer guidance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1 - 3 (MSP Airport)542 Language within this section under the draft ELG is vague and provides little guidance to permit writers regarding what proper technical specifications for operation maintenance of alternative systems may entail. It is acknowledged that perhaps the intent of this provision is to provide flexibility for the permit writer; however, the EPA sho uld provide additional guidance regarding the expectation for how alternative technical specifications should be developed. As currently written the section appears to provide an opportunity for this ELG to be applied and enforced in significantly differen t ways based on the permit writer's discretion. The EPA should provide more specific direction in guidance documentation or within §449.20(b)(2) for permit writers to understand the expected scope and outcome of alternative technical specifications written into permits. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports) The final rule provides several alternatives that an airport may choose to comply with the NSPS ADF collection requirement in the final regulation. However, it also allows permittees to request that they be allowed to employ alternative technologies to meet the collection requirements of the rule, and there are ma ny different types of technologies and configurations that a permittee might choose. EPA can not spell out every possibility and recognizes that airport - specific opportunities or limitations may require airport specific solutions. Therefore, it is not fea sible for EPA to provide specifications on what operating and maintenance requirements an airport may require for those technologies and approaches not selected as the basis for the national rulemaking. In those cases, permit authorities should request eno ugh documentation from an airport to ensure the requirements of the rule have been met and the preamble gives some examples of how permitting authorities may do so (e.g. credit for pollution prevention). Certainly after EPA promulgates an ELG, we remain av ailable to answer questions for permit writers, permittees, and the general public, on a variety on topics including implementation of a regulation. Also see response in comment code category COMP_DEMO EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1, comment excerpt number: 22 . PW_GUIDE - Permit writer guidance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 2 (AK DEC) In the case of Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (TSAIA) the airport is run by ADOT&PF and is considered the discharger in terms of who the permit is issued to and who has to comply with permit conditions. The airlines (or third party vendors) are the ones spraying the ADF and collecting it. Please include in the final Technical Development Document, or a separate guidance document, information a permi tting authority can use in developing individual permits, or in reissuing the Multi - Sector General Permit (MSGP). Response: EPA plans to issue a draft MSGP in 2012 that will incorporate the Airport Deicing ELG provisions. With respect to developing indi vidual permits, many permits exist that include airlines and/or third party vendors as co - permittees. In the case where a permit authority desires to take such an approach, EPA suggests this commenter refer to these existing permits for examples. Note th at decisions on whether a permit should properly include airlines as well as airports as co - permittees are outside the scope of this rulemaking.543 PW_GUIDE - Permit writer guidance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 13 The flexibility provided by §449.20(b)(2) would not be burdensome to this permitting authority. We encourage EPA to develop guidance for the states that can be used in implementation of this subsection. Response: The final rule does not contain uniform ADF collection requirements for existing airports, but there are such requirements for new sources. The alternative technology provisions applicable to new sources are in the final rule at § 449.20(a)(2). See section X.C. of the preamble for a discussion of the alternative technolog y provisions. PW_GUIDE - Permit writer guidance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 82 (PA NY/NJ) The Proposed Rule delegates to each permitting authority the discretion to determine the alternative technical specifications. Yet, the Proposed R ule does not include sufficient parameters or benchmarks to facilitate consistent, technically sound decisions by the permit writers. Without this guidance, the permitting authorities may take widely different approaches to alternative technology or specif ications, without appropriate or adequate supporting studies or other evidence. We would prefer the ability to work with our permitting authorities to develop cost - effective, workable approaches appropriate to the Port Authority airports. However, the Prop osed Rule would (1) establish requirements that would be infeasible for the Port Authority airports, (2) allow the permitting authorities discretion to apply their own method of compliance with these infeasible requirements, and (3) would not provide the p ermitting authorities with the needed information to understand the implications of their decisions. If discretion is granted, we strongly maintain that it must be accompanied by adequate information and viable options. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports) Also see response to PW_GUIDE EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1

– 3. PW_GUIDE - Permit writer guidance Comment Info : EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1244.1 - 22 (SLC Airport) SLC is also concerned with the considerable discretion granted to the state permit writers in deciding how airports must comply with the Proposed Rule. The permitting authorities have limited knowledge re garding the complexities of the aviation industry and moreover, would be applying an EPA regulation that ignores fundamental aviation considerations. Requiring them to enforce unreasonable collection and treatment standards will likely result in unworkable requirements at SLC. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports) Also see response to PW_GUIDE EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216 .1

– 3.544 PW_GUIDE - Permit writer guidance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1245 - 2 (MSP Airport) §449.20 Monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements allow excessive amounts of discretion for permit writer to determine compliance alternativ es The ELG allows too much discretion for the permit writer to determine the method of compliance with the ADF percent capture requirement. The permittee is the entity that is in the best position to determine which compliance demonstration method is most appropriate for their facility and should, have the ability to direct the permit writer towards a specific compliance demonstration method. Furthermore, with the compliance demonstration method being at the discretion of the director, permittees have limit ed ability to predict and plan for how the pending ELG could have an impact on their operations. The permit writer has the discretion to use different ADF collection technologies from those specified within the draft ELG as the draft language is currently written (§449.20(b)(2)). This does not appear to be the intent of the ELG to allow individual permit writers the latitude to circumvent the extensive research and evaluation conducted by the EPA in developing the collection technologies for the ELG. The us e of different ADF collection technologies within the context of ELG compliance should be at the request of the permittee seeking compliance through alternative means other than the methods allowed (§449. 2 0( b )(1) GRV/centralized deicing p ad use or §449.20( b)(3) applied/collected mass balance approach). Section §449.20 should specifically state that the permit writer shall utilize the compliance demonstration method determined by the permittee to be most appropriate for their specific facility. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports) Also, with respect to the NSPS aircraft deicing discharge requirements, the final rule l eaves it up to the permittee to select the method of compliance, which the Director shall approve if, in his or her discretion, it will achieve the collection requirement in the permit. S ee response to PW_GUIDE EPA - HQ - OW 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1

– 3. PW_GUIDE - Permit writer guidance Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1246 - 3 (VA DEQ) Please provide clarification regarding permit coverage under EPA’s Multi - Sector General Permit, or an authorized state’s equivalent, with respect to the ELG. As proposed, 40 CF R Part 449 is applicable to primary commercial airports that conduct deicing operations and that have more than 1,000 annual departures of scheduled commercial jet aircraft. Will commercial airports that currently have permit coverage under either the EPA’ s Multi - Sector General Permit (MSGP) or their authorized state’s equivalent that are now subject to the ELG be required to obtain coverage under an individual permit once the final rule is promulgated? If so, should the ELG allow for MSGP covered facilitie s to submit a permit application within 30 days of promulgation to be deemed in compliance with the new rule until such time as an individual permit can be issued? Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports) EPA plans to revise the MSGP to incorporate the Airport Deicing ELG provisions. The ELG provisions are not enforceable until they are545 incorporated in the permit. Airpo rts may continue to request coverage under the new MSGP (or the state equivalent) if they can meet its conditions, including the new Airport Deicing provisions. REG_100 - Require 100% collection Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1168 - 1 ("J. Public") Airports must collect all toxic chemicals of any kind and not allow impact on water. Airports must also pay for these improvements from their own profits and not put their hands into taxpayers wallets as they consistently do for all aviation improvements. It is time to make all aviation pay up. They have been allowed to be major polluters. It is 2009. Time for them to step up to the plate. They need to capture 100% of toxins. 60% lets them continue to pollute. Response: EPA has determined that none of the ADF collection technologies considered for today’s final rule represents the best available technology for the entire category. Rather, EPA concludes that best available technology determinations should continue to be made on a site - specific basis (i.e. best professional judgment of the permit authority) because such determinations appropriately consider localized operational constraints (e.g., traffic patterns), land availability, safety considerations, and potential impacts to flight schedules. See sec tion V.B.4 of the final rule preamble. The Clean Water Act requires that EPA develop New Source Performance Standards based on "best available demonstrated control technology." EPA determined that the NSPS requirement is 60 percent collection of available ADF, based on centralized deicing pads. EPA has no information of an available and economically achievable technology that is capable of capturing 100 percent of the sprayed ADF, and the commenter did not provide any information that such a technology exi sts. See the preamble of the final rule and TDD. REG_100 - Require 100% collection Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 4 (PA DEP) Every effort must be made at airports that discharge ADF to waters of the U.S. to collect and treat spent deicing fluids. If BAT is established as 20% or 60% collection and treatment, a significant portion of the ADF (80% or 40%) will discharge without treatment. Regulatory agencies will then be charged with the task of permitting these discharges, without any benefi t of a promulgated effluent limitation guideline for treatment standards. Attached to these comments is data, depicting the characteristics of discharges associated with Pittsburgh International Airport, which employs centralized deicing pads (presumably 6 0% collection of ADF). The data is attached hereto as Exhibit A. As illustrated by this data, significant discharges of pollutants remain after the employment of what could potentially be deemed best available technology. It should be noted that the attach ed sample results are from samples collected within waters of the Commonwealth (ADF fluids commingled with storm water and groundwater). Any effort to collect spent deicing fluids should strive to collect 100% of all spent deicing fluids. EPA recognizes t hat it is not aware of an available and economically achievable technology that is capable of capturing 100% of the spent ADF, and therefore, the Agency is focusing on collection technologies and their efficacy. The requirement for all airports should be t o conduct all aircraft deicing activities at dedicated pad(s), install a collection system at the pad(s) (intended to collect all wastewater on the pad during deicing activities), properly treat or dispose of the collected wastewater, cease the use of urea and any glycol based airfield deicers, and implement BMPs on the airfield to minimize discharges of spent546 deicing fluids. If the airport does not collect 100% of spent ADF at the pads, then they should be required to conduct improvements to the collection system and to employ new technologies. The ELG should then address the effluent limitations for the direct discharge of collected fluids. EPA should address the remaining discharges associated with airport deicing after the implementation of the selected BAT option. If the 60% option is identified as BAT, then there remains 40% of ADF not subject to BAT requirements. These remaining discharges, which can not be identified or classified as uncontaminated storm water runoff, are subject to NPDES permitting requirements. Response: EPA does not have any information in the record indicating that 100% of the glycol can be controlled and commenter did not identify any way of doing this. See comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1168 Excerpt Number 1 (in this same comme nt code, above). For new sources, the NSPS provide the basis for the technology - based effluent limitations of the permit; however, if the discharges under the technology based limits are insufficient to meet applicable water quality standards, the permit authority is required to issue more stringent effluent limitations to protect water quality. See CWA section 301(b)(1)(C). The state permitting authority also has authority under section 510 of the Act to issue permits that are more stringent than EPA s tandards. The NSPS has a technology basis of deicing pads, and treatment of collected wastewater. E PA recognizes that the model technology, deicing pads, does not capture 100% of pollutants. However, the 60% removal rate is the greatest extent possible of the technologies documented in the rulemaking record. Regarding regulation of pavement deicers other than urea, see the response to OPPOSE_BAN, 1 198 #1. Regarding implementing BMPs on the airfield, while EPA is aware of some BMPs in use at airports, E PA lacks data on their efficacy to reduce discharges. Therefore the Agency appropriately did not require BMPs in the final rule. With respect to the comment about discharges that the BAT - based requirements do not address, some level of discharge is autho rized because the limitation being set here, pursuant to the statutory standard, cannot prevent 100 percent of the discharge. REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1187 - 1 (DFW Airport) Annual Normalized ADF usage is defined as the average amount of normalized aircraft deicing fluid used annually, calculated over the five year period prior to submittal of a permit application or annual report. Current permit language does not clearly iden tify the term "annual" to be associated with a typical calendar year, or an airport deicing season, which generally occurs during two distinct calendar years (i.e. between the months of October and December of Calendar Year 1, and January and April of Cale ndar Year 2). A clarification of the definition of Annual Normalized ADF is required because many airports track and characterize deicing usage with the deicing season and not the calendar year. Additionally, airlines and other airport tenants are more lik ely to change the type of ADF used during the deicing offseason instead of during the deicing season, which may result in miscalculations in the normalized aircraft deicing fluid (i.e. ADF less any water). Therefore, DFW requests that the EPA alter the lan guage of Subpart A, § 449.2, specifically the definition of the Annual Normalized ADF Usage to: The average amount of normalized aircraft deicing fluid used in a deicing season, calculated from the five deicing seasons prior to the submittal of a permit ap plication or annual report.547 Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). The final rule does not use the term "Annual normali zed ADF usage." REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1187 - 2 In Subpart A, § 449.10(2b) and § 449.11(2b) (the Treatment of Collected Runoff from Aircraft Deicing) the current draft permit states that "Except for ADF collected and transported to off - site treatment facilities, any existing point source subject to this Part must achieve the numeric effluent limitations in Table 1 ." Airports with existing deicing collection and treatment systems generally haul treated/c ollected ADF to off - site disposal facilities or discharge collected ADF to local Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). Section VII, Technology Options, Costs, Wastewater Characteristics, and Pollutant Reductions recognizes the distinction between POTW an d commercial treatment/recycle facilities (off - site treatment). DFW Airport requests that Subpart A, § 449.10(2b) and § 449.11(2b) be revised to state: "Except for ADF collected and transported to off - site treatment facilities or discharged to local POTWs, any existing point source subject to this Part must achieve the numeric effluent limitations in Table 1 ." Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatme nt for existing airports). EPA determined that the phrase in the proposed rule, "Except for ADF collected and transported to offsite treatment facilities" is superfluous, and the phrase has been deleted in the final rule. REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1202.1 - 3 (Radiant Aviation) Radiant recommends NPRM wording change: “The Radiant System deices aircraft, and as with all other anti - icing methodologies, when required, anti - icing fluid is applied using conve ntional methods, inside the Radiant facility. As the anti - icing process begins only after the aircraft has been completely deiced, and occurs inside the warm, covered structure, inspections and fluid application can be completed very efficiently, minimizin g the amount of fluid used, and ensuring that valuable holdover protection time for the Flight Crew is not wasted.” Response: The final rule does not include any language specific to the Radiant system. However, infrared deicing technology is described in the preamble and the Technical Development Document in a manner consistent with the data in the rulemaking record. REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1207.1 - 10 (Mich. DNRE) The criteria used to determine app licability needs to be consistent with terminology used and information compiled by the Federal Aviation Administration. Use of aircraft operations numbers for air carriers, or548 other readily available information from the Terminal Area Forecast Detail Repo rt would serve as a better description for coverage. Not all commercial airlines employ jets, some use turbo props as connectors. Response: EPA has revised some aspects of the applicability language in the final rule. The overall applicability of Part 4 49 is to discharges from deicing operations at Primary Airports. "Primary Airports" are defined by statute (49 USC 47102 (15)). The BAT and certain NSPS requirements apply to point sources with at least 1,000 annual non - propeller aircraft departures. EPA d evised this criterion to exclude commercial airports which are small but have a high number of propeller - plane flights; most of these airports are in Alaska. (The unique aspects of air transportation in Alaska are described in section 2.9 of the Economic A nalysis.) As stated in section IV.B. of the final rule preamble, operators of commercial non - jet aircraft typically suspend flights during icing conditions. The criterion was formulated with FAA consultation. Air carriers regularly report their departure data to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. See section 2.2.1 of the Economic Analysis (p. 2 - 4) for the final rule. REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208 - 1 (PHL Airport) EPA defines the term "Normalized ADF" to mean "ADF less any water added by the customer before application." However, some as - purchased ADF contains up to 10 - 12% water. The term Normalized ADF should be clarified to reflect the true amount of glycol being applied in deicing operations. Response: The final regulation includes a definition for normalized ADF as follows: "ADF less any water added by the manufacturer or customer before ADF application" and therefore addresses this comment directly. REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Co mment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1208 - 2 The proposed ELGs contain several different terms to describe the effluent from deicing operations. These include "wastewater," "deicing stormwater," "ADF contaminated wastewater," etc. These should be clarified i nto one term in order to assist airports in planning for compliance. Response: The term "Storm water" is defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(13). In the final rule:

**•** The term "wastewater" is used only in the recordkeeping requirement at 40 CFR 449.20(c)(1), and does not imply a meaning specific to this category that calls for a specialized definition. **•** The terms "ADF - contaminated stormwater" and "ADF - contaminated water" are not used in the final rule. REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1210.1 - 4 (Fertilizer Institute) As stormwater runoff from airports is generally permitted under EPA’s MSGP or a state version of that general permit, the discharge is more correctly categorized as “stormwater associated with industrial a ctivity” as opposed to “wastewater.”

– contrary to EPA’s suggestion in the NPRM.2 [FOOTNOTE: 2 The most recent MSGP was published on September 29, 2008. 73 Fed. Reg. 56572.] Despite EPA’s549 mischaracterization of the discharge in the NPRM, EPA nevertheless p oints out that these discharges are permitted as stormwater discharges elsewhere in the NPRM (74 Fed. Reg. at 44678) and has consistently characterized deicing runoff as stormwater discharges in its permits and regulations. See 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14); s ee also MSGP Sector S. Discharges of deicing products from airports are largely composed of stormwater, which is subject to best management practices and monitoring requirements under the MSGP (or individual stormwater permits, as appropriate) which addres s deicer - impacted runoff. TFI requests that EPA correctly identify that the discharges addressed by the Proposed Rule are not discharges of wastewater, but rather are discharges of stormwater runoff associated with industrial activity. Response: Stormwa ter discharges from airports are considered and regulated as stormwater from industrial activity. See 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14); see also MSGP Sector S. Dry weather discharges from airports would be considered wastewater discharges. REG_LANG - Regulatory la nguage changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 3 (ANC Airport) Need to better define difference between "deicing fluid" and "anti - icing fluid". Possible to use anti - icing fluid instead of deicing fluid to avoid higher collection rates. For d eicing fluid, available ADF is 80 percent of what is sprayed; for anti - icing fluid, available ADF is only 10 percent. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). EPA has revised the fluid definitions in the final rule. "Available ADF" is: 75 percent of the normalized Type I aircraft deicing fluid and 10 percent of the normalized Type IV aircraft deicing fluid, excluding aircraf t deicing fluids used for defrosting or deicing for safe taxiing. These percentages are explained in section 9.2.3 of the TDD. The definition uses the "Type I" and "Type IV" terminology used by fluid manufacturers and the aviation industry. A irlines submitted usage data for Type I and Type IV deicing fluids on EPA's Airline Questionnaire. "Aircraft deicing fluid (ADF)" is: a fluid (other than hot water) applied to aircraft to remove or prevent any accumulation of snow or ice on the aircraft. This in cludes deicing and anti - icing fluids. This definition enables the use of a single term, "ADF," throughout the rest of Part 449, by explaining in "plain English" that it includes both deicing and anti - icing fluids (Types I and IV, respectively). Further, E PA does not have any information in its record indicating airports use Type IV anti - icing fluids for deicing purposes (including questionnaire responses in which EPA asked airports what chemicals they use for deicing), and given the chemical differences in the two fluids, it is unlikely that a formulation designed for anti - icing would be as effective at deicing.550 REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1212.1 - 20 GRV is not defined within the regulations. Should allow air port to determine what equipment would work for the specific conditions. Under certain circumstances, a standard curb and gutter vacuum truck works better than a GRV designed for removal of glycol. Response: The final rule does not include any reference t o GRVs, so there is no need to define it. To provide useful information, t he Technical Development Document has a thorough explanation of what is considered a Glycol Collection Vehicle. Additionally, the NSPS provisions in the final rule allow for an airp ort to use whatever technology it chooses, provided it meets the applicable collection requirements. REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 36 (EQ Resource Recovery) § 449.20 (1) (i ) (D) this statement assumes that the airport owns and operates the "GRV" and that they are available prior to or after the deicing season, or that they will have access to the equipment. § 449.20 (1) (ii) (C) it is an over - generalization to assume that dr ainage valves must be activated prior to using a deicing pad. It would more appropriate to state that "the deicing pad should be activated" or "the deicing pad should be configured to collect ADF" or similar. (EQRR has experience with collection systems th at are always active, and rely on pumps and overflows to determine the segregation of materials. § 449.20 (1) (ii) (D) though (G) appear to duplicate, with less guidance, the requirements provided by the FAA, under its Air Circulars 150/5300 - XX series. If rules and requirements already exist, in far more detail than provided by your proposed rule, would it be more appropriate to require them by reference? Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set unifo rm requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). Additionally, should a new ai r port feel they have an alternative or more effective means of operating a deicing pad which will still achieving 60% collection they may use those altern ate specifications as laid out in 449.20(a)(2) REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1219.1 - 4 (NATA) Part 449.2, General Definitions, reads: “Annual jet departures means the average number of commercial jet aircraf t that take off from an airport on an annual basis...” However, Part 449.1, Applicability reads: “annual scheduled commercial air carrier jet departures.” NATA believes that the pertinent part of 449.2 should be rewritten to read: “Annual jet departures mean s the average number of scheduled commercial jet aircraft that take off from an airport on an annual basis...” Response: In the final rule, the applicability section, § 449.1, no longer refers to jet departures. However, EPA specified aircraft departure criteria in §§ 449.10 and 449.11, using a similar, but more clearly defined term, "annual non - propeller aircraft departures ." This term is defined as "the average number of commercial turbine - engine aircraft that are propelled by jet, i.e. turbojet or turbofan, that take off from an551 airport on an annual basis, as tabulated by the Federal Aviation Administration." These are ac tual departures as reported to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), not scheduled departures. See DCNs AD05164 and AD05165. REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 24 (ATA) EPA must modify Proposed § 449.20(b)(1)(i)(A) to eliminate the 25gallon limit and simply state that “all deicing activities with the exception of “deicing for safe taxiing” (as defined) shall take place in an area . . .,” and must delete Proposed § 449.20(b)(1)(ii)(B). While we do not believe it is appropriate for the Agency to do so, should it choose to provide necessary to ensure “deicing for safe - taxiing,” ADF usage guidelines it must expressly acknowledge any such guideline included in a permit must be reasonably related to cl imatic conditions prevailing at the airport in question, subject to FAA safety requirements and subject to exception at the sole discretion of pilot in command. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). The final rule does not contain a limit on volume of ADF used for safe taxiing at new airports. REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 123 0.1 - 18 (AK DEC) §449.2 Please add definitions for the following: (1) aircraft deicing, (2) anti - icing fluid, (3) deicing product, (4) Director, (5) emulsifier, (6) Glycol Recovery Vehicle, (7) off - site treatment system, and (8) on - site treatment facil ity. Response: "Director" is defined at 40 CFR 122.2. "Anti - icing fluid" is included in the definition of "aircraft deicing fluid." The terms "emulsifier," "glycol recovery vehicle" and "off - site treatment system" do not appear in the final rule and th erefore do not require a definition. The other terms have common meanings, and no specialized meanings in this rule, and therefore are not defined in the rule. REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 19 §449.10( b) Include a specific prohibition on the discharge of collected ADF to anywhere except an offsite treatment facility or on - site treatment facility. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform r equirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). Such a prohibitions are unnecessary. The final rule already contains NSPS for on - site discharges that are based on the use of the best available demonstrated control technology.552 REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1230.1 - 21 §449.20(a) The requirement is for dischargers to report the annual normalized ADF usage only at permit renewal application. We recommend adding after the end of the sent ence "... application, or as required by the permitting authority." Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). The applicab ility of the NSPS requirements in the final rule is determined by geographic location (based on heating degree days), not ADF usage. See § 449.11(a). The final rule retains a provision for ADF usage recordkeeping and reporting at §449.20(a)(3) , for permittees that choose monitoring as an alternative to using the compliance procedures at § 449.20(a)(1) or ( 2). This reporting alternative has been revised to read, "... report at a frequency determined by the Director, the volume of ADF sprayed an d the amount of available ADF collected." A lso see the final rule preamble at section X.C.2., for a summary of the compliance determination procedures. REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 7 (AAAE) Therefo re, 40 C.F.R. § 449.1 Applicability would include the following: "This part does not apply to Primary Airports with deicing operations with annual normalized ADF usage that is less than 100,000 gallons." Section 40 C.F.R. § 449.10(a)(2) should be clarified as necessary. Such a change is essential to lessen the regulatory burden on airports that infrequently use ADF or use ADF in limited quantities. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requ irements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). EPA has revised the applicability of the NSPS collection requirement to exclude those airports that do not conduct significant aircraft deicing. REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comme nt Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1235 - 1 I believe the proposed rule leaves far too much latitude to individual regulators to determine glycol capture as it is defined in the regulations. The main concept of a national standard is to insure uniformity among states and the proposed rule does not a ssure uniform treatment among states for anything other than BAT defined capture methods. Because many airports may opt for alternative solutions with a measured capture the methods to determine measured capture need to be clearly defined in the rule to av oid differences among states that may result in unfair competitive advantages. I do not believe that it is sufficient to leave this determination up to the individual states and regulators as proposed in the rule because this will result in inconsistencies in application of the rule and errors in measured capture.553 Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). The rule does establ ish ADF collection and treatment requirements for new sources. These requirements are based on the iden ti fication of BADCT technology, and establishment of collection and treatment standards based on that technology. The permittee may request to use alte rnative technologies to achieve the collection requirements of the permit, but only on the approval of the Director, where the Director determines, in his or her discretion, that the requested alternative procedure will achieve the collection requirement . This process provides some flexibility in compliance measures taken while still ensuring that the NSPS standards are met. EPA does not believe that this approach will result in inconsistencies or errors alleged by the commenter. REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 6 (PA DEP) Page 44680, Table IV - 1. Criteria for regulatory level is based on > than 1,000 “Annual Jet Departures” and <> 10,000 “Annual Departures”. Annual Departures is not defined. A definit ion of this term should be added to the guideline. Response: See response to 1207.1, item 10 (criteria for departures) (above) REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 34 Page 44717, §449.20 (a). Annual norma lized ADF usage is not defined. Response: The final rule includes a definition of normalized ADF. See §449.2. The rule does not mention annual ADF usage. REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 44 Page 9 - 4, Section 9.2.3. The 60

– 66% collection efficiencies cited for PIT were achieved through the use of dedicated deicing pads and GRVs at the pads and gates not just deicing pads. Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this additional information and has updated the documentation to reflect this clarification.554 REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 71 (ACI) EPA Must Clarify That Only Discharges to Surface Waters Are Subject to the Proposed COD Limits. The Proposed Rule imposes COD limits on collected ADF runoff, “Except for ADF collected and transported to off - site treatment facilities...” Yet, in the preamble, EPA explains that the treatment standards are intended to apply unless runoff is sent “to a PO TW or commercial treatment/recycle facility.” While we believe EPA intended for discharges to a POTW to be exempt from the treatment requirements, that intention should be clarified in the proposed regulatory language. Response: This language has been cl arified and revised for the final rule. REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1245 - 1 (MSP Airport) Clearly define intent of COD limit in regard to §449.10(b) and §449.11(b) Chemical oxygen demand (COD) effluent li mitations are proposed for the discharge from on - site treatment systems that receive collected runoff from aircraft deicing. The MAC understands that these limits are intended for on - site treatment works and not for storm water retention ponds that may be impacted by aircraft deicing. Storm water ponds can often be impacted by aircraft deicing yet are not designed to treat or intended to receive storm water impacted by aircraft deicing. For instance, at MSP there are various spent Aircraft Deicing Fluid (AD F) collection strategies in place. These include deicing pads, plug and pump, and glycol recovery vehicles. Glycol - impacted storm water (GISW) runoff collected from these areas is transferred to the Glycol Management Facility where the fluid is either recy cled or sent off - site to a publicly - owned treatment works (POTW). There is no discharge of collected fluids from this facility to public waters. However, MSP does have storm water retention ponds that were designed and constructed to assist with solid rem oval prior to discharge to the local waterways. These ponds have the potential to be impacted by ADFs due to overspray, snow melt, wind' disposition, or other factors. There is no GISW that is actively collected and diverted into these storm water ponds. T he MAC does not believe the EPA intends that the discharge from these storm water ponds would be required to meet the COD limits proposed under §449.10(b); however, there is no definition of "collected runoff and/or "on - site treatment" to provide permit wr iters with clarity regarding the EPA's intentions. The EPA should develop definitions that clearly state §449.10(b) and §449.11(b) applies to on - site treatment works that were constructed for the specific purpose of treatin g collected runoff that has been impacted by aircraft deicing operations and as part of a collection system to meet the percent collection criteria. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). For NSPS, the COD limit is enforced on the percentage of available ADF that the airport is required to collect and treat, provided that these wastewaters are directly discharged. While it is impossible to state that pond s such as those described in the comment would be outside the scope of this final regulation without more data, ADF resulting from overspray, and wind disposition is intended to be excluded from the treatment requirements of the final rule. The rule sets the percentage of available ADF at less than 100%, to allow for these fugitive ADF discharges that may not be capable of collection and treatment in an economically achievable manner.555 REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 00 38 - 1246 - 2 (VA DEQ) Please provide additional clarification regarding the ADF percent capture collection requirement. EPA is proposing percent capture requirements of either 20 percent or 60 percent of available ADF based on the number of annual commer cial aircraft departures. As proposed, the permittee will be required to monitor periodically and at a frequency determined by the Director, the amount of ADF sprayed and the amount of available ADF collected in order to determine compliance with the perce nt capture requirement. As written it is unclear if the percent capture requirement is calculated on an annual basis, per deicing season (as defined by the permitting authority), or per deicing event? For example, should the ELG be worded such that it read s “All dischargers subject to this Part, with 10,000 or greater annual departures and annual normalized ADF usage of 460,000 gallons or greater, must collect at least 60 percent of the available ADF on an annual basis and comply with application discharge standards in paragraph (b) of this section”? Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). Additionally, should a new airport d ecide to simply calculate and report the percent of ADF collected, the frequency of said reporting is at the director’s discretion. REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1248 - 1 (Chicago) The CDA collects and disch arges spent aircraft deicing fluid ("ADF"), as well as pavement deicing fluid, to our local publicly owned treatment works ("POTW") when pollution concentrations exceed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits. We believe that our local POTW qualifies as an "off - site treatment facility" under §449.10(b) of the proposed rule. However, the term is not defined in the rule, and accordingly we request that the term be defined and/or clarified to provide that certainty. Response: Se e response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). (The final rule does not set uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports). For NSPS, the preamble clarifies that the COD limit only applies to direct discharges of collec ted ADF. It does not apply to facilities that send their spent ADF to a POTW. REG_LANG - Regulatory language changes Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1248 - 2 Assuming that is USEPA's intent, we would also request clarification of the applicability of the rule as a whole to airports, like O'Hare, which have a comprehensive stormwater/deicing fluid collection system which discharge to a POTW whenever pollutants exceed NPDES limits.556 Response: See response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1248, Comment Excerpt Nu mber: 1 (above) SITE_CONST - New subcategory for site - constrained airports Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 10 (ATA) Develop New Subcategory for Site - Constrained Tier One Airports One of the central deficiencies in the Proposed Rule is failure to acknowledge and address the absence of Record support for the proposition that CDPs can in fact be deployed at airports where BAT requires their deployment. As discussed above, the only technology EPA purports to have demonstrated as capable of achieving the Tier One collection standard is “centralized deicing pads.” As a result, based on EPA’s own Record, there is no demonstrate d alternative but for all aircraft deicing at Tier One airports to take place on CDPs.31 However, there is no definitive statement in the Record that Tier One airports in fact have sufficient and appropriate locations to site pads capable of handling 100% of departures, including the airport’s peak hourly departure rate. Rather, EPA speaks to this issue in terms that are, at best, equivocal. In the Notice, EPA says that it “finds that the proposed BAT technologies are generally available to be installed or used by those in the industry;”32 fourteen lines below that statement EPA asserts that it has found each of the four options in Table VII - 2 (“ADF Collection Technology Options Considered for BAT”) is “widely available.”33 Generally available or widely avai lable, however, is not “available.” The statement immediately following this assertion is the closest the Agency comes to making a definitive statement: “EPA finds that for the [Tier One airports], collection of ADF based on the use of deicing pads is tech nologically available.”34 This statement, while it may be intended to be so interpreted, does not unequivocally state all Tier One airports can deploy CDPs of sufficient size and quantity to accommodate all aircraft deicing operations demanded at the airpo rt

– only that CDPs may be deployed at the airports in the limited, and effectively meaningless, sense that “a CDP or CDPs of some sort could be deployed.” In fact, the analysis EPA intended to identify in the Notice as establishing that “constrained airpo rts have sufficient land to install the necessary collection technologies,” 35 only claims that the “analysis indicates that even space limited airports can install some combination of deicing pads as one option to help achieve the target capture and contr ol percentage for spent ADF.”36 Even this conclusion is grounded on derivation of “conceptual” pad locations the actual feasibility of which cannot be ascertained because, the analysts acknowledge, they lacked “sufficient information” to do so.37 We will n ot repeat here our extensive discussion regarding the deficiencies of this analysis (see Section VII(A)), but in this context it is important to emphasize that the analysis is based on extrapolations of data on the size of three airports, PIT, DIA and DTW. None of these airports deploy CDPs to the exclusion of other technologies to collect ADF. In addition, none of the airports EPA uses to “estimate” the collection efficiency of CDPs relies exclusively on CDPs to collect ADF (see Section VII(A)) and the Age ncy does not conform the collection standard to the characteristics of the pad collection systems upon which it basis its estimate. In short, there is no credible evidence in this Record that the proposed Best Available Technology for Tier One ADF collecti on is in fact available. Absent such evidence the selection of CDPs as a model collection technology and the proposed BAT for ADF Collection at Tier One airports upon which it I based, cannot stand. Indeed, ATA is confident that siting CDPs of sufficient n umber and size (together with their necessary appurtenances) to handle 100% of the scheduled departures at EWR, LGA, JFK, BOS, and perhaps at other airports will prove impossible. 38 ATA appreciates the difficulty of this issue. Even within the aviation co mmunity, decisions about airfield modifications present complex questions depending upon the evaluation of interdependent safety, operational and regulatory issues including, but not limited to, their effect on NAS. Airlines, airports and the FAA often com e together to resolve these complex questions, and it is this kind of cooperative application of expertise that ATA believes might be of value in resolving the question of centralized pad availability at Tier One airports. Given that the Proposed Rule cann ot move forward until a way is found to address the availability of centralized deicing pads at Tier One airports, EPA should establish a working relationship with appropriate offices at the557 FAA and with key airline and airport stakeholders, to identify th ose Tier One airports that in the expert opinion of the FAA cannot realistically employ EPA’s model collection technology for reasons of land availability or operational continuity. Based on these consultations, EPA could place those airports into a separa te subcategory and, again with the help of the FAA and the industry, identify an appropriate model collection technology capable of application at those airports without impinging unacceptably on safety or operational continuity. That subcategory and its r evised model collection technology could then be included in a re - proposal or a NODA and subjected to review and comment by the public. Response: See response to comment 1232.1, excerpt 123 (below) (commenter: Port Authority).[separate subcategory is not needed for site - constrained airports] SITE_CONST - New subcategory for site - constrained airports Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 116 (Port Authority NY/NJ) XI. EPA Must Either Appropriately Subcategorize the Airport Industry or Establish a L egally Defensible Mechanism Exempting Land Constrained Airports. As explained in Section V of these comments, the Port Authority airports are land - constrained and cannot obtain additional land, reconfigure existing structures, or make the types of changes that would be mandated by EPA’s deicing ELG proposal. Even if these other impediments did not make compliance impossible, the cost of achieving compliance would so outweigh any limited benefits that pursuing such a scenario would be illogical and contrary to the interests of the flying public that rely on these airports. Hence, the Port Authority airports are left in an untenable position and facing the prospect that EPA could promulgate a final rule that would force the airports either to operate in violat ion of the law or cease operations during winter weather that demands the use of ADF to maintain safe operations. Both of those options are unacceptable. The Port Authority can identify several options that EPA must consider to help alleviate this conundru m. First, EPA could agree with the Port Authority that the existing SPDES permitting approaches that apply to the Port Authority and other airports across the country already provide the necessary protections set forth in the Clean Water Act. That conclusi on would end EPA’s further efforts to promulgate deicing ELGs, and the Port Authority believes that there would be significant benefit to that solution in terms of site - specific flexibility and public safety, with no detrimental impact on environmental pro tection. Next, EPA could subcategorize the airport industry within any future deicing ELG. In particular, the Port Authority would require that EPA create at least one subcategory for land - constrained airports that cannot build new infrastructure for coll ection or treatment of spent ADF. Such a subcategory should be based on implementing BMPs similar to the existing Port Authority SPDES permits (see Section I of these comments). To create one or more subcategories, EPA would have to repropose the deicing E LG either through a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or, if possible, through a Notice of Data Availability in relation to new data EPA obtains through this notice - and - comment process. EPA could not justify significant modification to the existing Propose d Rule that would create new subcategories and reasonably conclude that such a final rule was a “logical outgrowth” of the proposed rule.290 Response: See response to comment 1232.1, excerpt 123 (commenter: Port Authority)[separate subcategory is not needed for site - constrained airports]. With respect to the comment about existing permits being sufficient, EPA's Environment Impact and Benefit Assessment provides multiple examples of issues related to deicing discharges under current permits.558 SITE_CONS T - New subcategory for site - constrained airports Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 120 EPA’s incomplete analysis with respect to land availability must be addressed, if not through an outright exemption or FDF variance, then through its discreti on to set different effluent limits within a category or subcategory when circumstances require. Relevant case law finds that the rigorous subcategorization process is not necessary every time EPA discovers genuine differences between groups of point sourc es within a long - established category or sub - category.301 In the Texas Oil & Gas case, the Fifth Circuit determined that EPA had plenary rulemaking authority under the CWA that included the power to set different effluent limits for different point sources in the same category or subcategory. The court reviewed an ELG that provided more lenient obligations for regulated entities in certain areas, while demanding zero discharge for others. In its analysis, the court analyzed FDF variances and determined that where variations are fully discovered before the ELG rulemaking is complete, a FDF variance is inappropriate.302 In Texas Oil & Gas, the court found that EPA was justified in using differences in the landscape of the Alaskan coastline that could impact te chnology choice and establish more lenient standards. In doing so, the court determined that a FDF variance was not appropriate. Instead, the court determined that EPA had the authority to issue more lenient effluent limits for operations off the Alaskan c oastline pursuant to its plenary authority, and upheld those more lenient limits developed by EPA.303 The case leaves open the question about whether EPA must issue different effluent limits for various subcategories when their differences are well - known d uring the rulemaking process. If a FDF variance truly is not permitted in such circumstances, then a logical reading of that decision would impose on EPA an obligation to create appropriate subcategories to address known significant differences that could prevent certain facilities from complying with a single nationally applicable standard. The land configuration differences in the Texas Oil & Gas case are similar to the land configuration differences in the Port Authority’s situation. The land configurati on drastically impacts the method in which the Port Authority may operate its airports. The land configuration at the Port Authority airports constrains the Port Authority’s ability to operate like other airports with more available land, similar to the co astline difference that required more lenient standards in the Texas Oil & Gas case. Consequently, EPA has the discretion to

– perhaps even the obligation to

– set different effluent limits within a category (or to create subcategories) in any final deicin g ELG for different types of airports, including land - constrained airports. Response: See response to comment 1232.1, excerpt 123 (commenter: Port Authority).[separate subcategory is not needed for site - constrained airports]. SITE_CONST - New subcatego ry for site - constrained airports Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 123 Any New ELG Proposal Should Include a Subcategory for Land - Constrained Airports EPA’s Proposed Rule inadequately considers the significant issues facing land - constrained airpo rts. The Port Authority’s comments provide substantial evidence that all three of our major airports have serious land constraints that make implementing and complying with the proposed standards essentially impossible. As discussed in Section XI, JFK, LGA , and EWR, as well as other airports with severe land constraints, should be included in a separate subcategory with separate, more flexible approaches that recognize the unique and serious challenges facing such airports.559 Response: The final rule does n ot establish uniform requirements for collection or treatment of ADF at existing airports. See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING) and section V.C of the preamble. The only BAT regulations promulgated in this final rule concern airfield pa vement deicing, and the technology basis for those regulations simply concerns the type of product used for such deicing, a matter that does not implicate the need for additional land. Therefore, a separate subcategory of BAT regulations for existing airp orts that are land - constrained is not warranted. Similarly, a separate subcategory is not needed for NSPS regulations for land - constrained new airports, because planning and allocation of land for all new airports is expected to include all necessary faci lities for the new airport. See section V.C of the preamble. SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constrained airports - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 3 (MassPort) Boston - Logan already struggles with significant operational constraints as a result of its limited land area and the highly variable winds associated with its coastal location. Boston - Logan maintains its position as one of the United States’ major airports despite the fact that it is extraordinarily “space - constrained”

– that is, that it occupies a land area that is small in relation to its high volume of traffic, and has a limited amount of space available within its property boundaries for additional or n ew development. Boston Logan occupies approximately 1,750 acres of land in East Boston and Winthrop, immediately to the east of the densely populated urban neighborhood of East Boston, and is surrounded on its other three sides by, respectively, the waters of Boston Harbor, Boston Inner Harbor and Winthrop Bay, as shown in Figure 1 [SEE FIGURE IN MASSPORT SUBMITTAL 1227.2].82 [FOOTNOTE: 82 See Ishihara Affidavit, 5; Bessom Affidavit, 4. In fact, Massport is prohibited by state law from expanding Boston Log an past its existing western property boundary line into East Boston. See 1964 Mass. Acts 269.] Moreover, almost all of the available space at Boston - Logan is already occupied by existing airfield or landside activities, as shown in Figures 2 and 3 [SEE FI GURE IN MASSPORT SUBMITTAL 1227.2].83 [FOOTNOTE: 83 See Ishihara Affidavit, 5 (“Boston - Logan’s 1,751 acres of land are virtually fully occupied by the existing airfield, terminals, roadways, parking garages and other supporting infrastructure.”); id. 25 (“ Moreover, the use of any of the infield (grassland) areas on the airfield is further constrained, because almost the entire airfield is designated at the state level as ‘Priority Habitat of Rare Species’ and therefore regulated under the MA Endangered Spec ies Act (321 CMR 10).”); Bessom Affidavit, 4 (“In the non - movement area, there is no vacant property within the airport boundary. The last developable area, the North Service Area, is slated for construction of a facility for maintenance of Massport buses. In addition, there is essentially no surface parking at the airport; all parking is in multi level garages.”)] In addition, the wind conditions at Boston - Logan are highly variable, with wind directions ranging around all points of the compass. Figure 5 [S EE FIGURE IN MASSPORT SUBMITTAL 1228.1] shows the average percentage of time, over the course of a typical year, during which the wind blows from each of the four quadrants of the compass: 18% of the time, on an average annual basis, from the northeast, 37 % from the northwest, 17% from the southeast and 28% from the southwest. This constantly changing wind direction necessitates a more complex airfield layout at Boston Logan than at airports with less variable wind, with the result that Boston - Logan has six runways, aligned in a total of four directions, as shown in Figure 2 [SEE FIGURE IN MASSPORT SUBMITTAL 1227.2].84 [FOOTNOTE: 84 See Ishihara Affidavit, 8. Each runway operates in two directions and is named according to the compass headings toward which i ts ends point. In addition, parallel runways having the same compass heading are designated “right” and “left.” Therefore, Boston - Logan’s six runways are 4L/22R, 4R/22L, 15L/33R, 15R/33L, 14/32 and 9/27. See Figure 2; see also Ishihara Affidavit, 6.] Moreo ver, because the land area in which Boston - Logan is located is relatively small and limited to a peninsula, these runways and taxiways necessarily cross each other in many locations, requiring enhanced safety precautions to prevent runway incursions.85 [FO OTNOTE: 85 See Ishihara560 Affidavit, 9. The FAA defines a runway incursion as “[a]ny occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and takeoff of a ircraft.” FAA, 2009 FAA Annual Runway Safety Report, at p. 4.] As a general rule, aircraft must take off and land into the wind, especially as wind speeds increase. Personnel in the FAA air traffic control tower at Boston - Logan therefore determine the avai lability of specific runway configurations by wind speed and direction, as well as several other factors. For example, the FAA prefers to have at least three runways in use at Boston - Logan, and to separate arrivals from departures on different runways. Mor eover, if possible, the FAA prefers to separate large and small planes on different runways, as a means of managing wake turbulence from large planes. Other factors that FAA air traffic controllers consider in determining runway usage at Boston - Logan inclu de length of runways (heavier planes need longer runways), runway usability for instrument landings and noise restrictions (for example, jets are not allowed to arrive on Runway 22R or depart on Runway 4L).86 [FOOTNOTE: 86 See Ishihara Affidavit, 7.] Based on all of these factors, departing aircraft typically must use the following runway configurations during the following wind conditions (as depicted graphically in Figure 6) [SEE FIGURE IN MASSPORT SUBMITTAL 1228.1]: • In a northeast wind, arrivals are on Runways 4L and 4R, and departures are from Runways 4L (except for jets), 4R and 9. This is the most common runway configuration utilized during deicing conditions. • In a northwest wind, both arrivals and departures are on Runways 27 and 33L; if the wind is greater than 10 knots, Boston - Logan is allowed to use Runway 14/32 for smaller aircraft. This is the second most common runway configuration utilized during deicing conditions. • In a southeast wind, arrivals are on Runway 15R and departures are from Ru nways 15R and 9. This is the third most common runway configuration utilized during deicing conditions. • In a southwest wind, arrivals are on Runways 22L and 27, and departures are from Runways 22L and 22R. This runway configuration may be in use when mor ning deicing of frost is necessary. • In certain weather conditions, only one runway is used for both arrivals and departures. In heavy snow and/or low visibility, Runway 4R is normally the runway used; in strong winds, the runway facing most directly into the wind is used.87 [FOOTONOTE: 87 See id., 8.] In sum, the Proposed Rule fails to account for any of these operational factors that space - constrained airports such as Boston - Logan would face in trying to comply with EPA’s proposed requirements. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ) SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constrained airports - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 16 Boston - Logan Does Not Have Space to Store The Deicing Runoff From An Expanded Juliet Pad. Even if the Expanded Juliet Pad did not present the host of operational problems described above, it would still be unworkable bec ause there is no available, usable space at Boston - Logan in which to locate the storage capacity that Boston - Logan would need to comply with the Proposed Rule’s requirement for 60% collection of spent available ADF using a centralized deicing pad. As illus trated in Figure 3A above, there is only one small, inadequately sized area at Boston - Logan that is available for deicing runoff storage. Massport engaged a leading wastewater engineering firm, Camp, Dresser & McKee Inc. (“CDM”), to estimate how much deici ng runoff would be generated and require collection from the use of the conceptual Expanded Juliet Pad for 100% throughput of all aircraft departing Boston - Logan during deicing conditions (as the Proposed Rule would require142) [FOOTNOTE: 142 This was a si mplifying assumption due to the complexity of accounting for the necessary closures of Expanded Juliet Pad in some conditions.], and how much storage capacity would be needed to store this total amount of deicing runoff prior to treatment and disposal.143 [FOOTNOTE: 143 See generally “Deicing Runoff Storage Analysis, Boston Logan Airport, Massachusetts Port Authority,” prepared by CDM, dated February 2010561 (hereinafter “CDM Report”) (attached hereto as Exhibit 5).] Using its Airport Deicing Management Model (“ADMM”)

– which was developed in conjunction with the FAA and is used at airports nationwide

– CDM determined that Boston - Logan would need approximately 4.3 million gallons of storage capacity to store the deicing runoff from Expanded Juliet Pad under the Proposed Rule.144 [FOOTNOTE: 144 See id. at p. 2 - 5. Sampling for the 2009 Boston - Logan Water Quality Study found that approximately 50% of applied ADF was lost between application and the outfall discharge, presumably through fugitive loss mechanisms such as evaporation and biological degradation. Therefore, CDM assumed that 100% of ADF - containing stormwater would have to be collected to comply with the Proposed Rule. For airports such as Boston - Logan, the Proposed Rule requires collection of 60% of availa ble ADF, and EPA assumes that available ADF is 80% of applied ADF. Therefore, under the Proposed Rule, 48% (60% of 80%) of applied ADF must be collected. See id. at pp. 1 - 6

– 1 - 7. (Note that EPA’s definition of available ADF is what falls to the deicing pa d, so CDM’s finding that only 50% of applied ADF reaches the end of the collection system is not inconsistent with EPA’s assumption of 80% availability.)] Moreover, to store this amount of runoff, Boston - Logan would need to find room at the already space - c onstrained Boston - Logan for three 1.8 million gallon aboveground storage tanks (like those at the Boston - Logan fuel tank facility).145 [FOOTNOTE: 145 See id. at p. 2 - 10. In addition, EPA should note that the estimates generated by CDM’s “single design deic ing season representing a maximum storage needs scenario” may not provide the maximum storage capacity that would ensure 100% compliance with the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule does not have a “design storm” event threshold, which means that Boston - Logan would be responsible for ensuring storage for deicing seasons that may exceed the CDM model season. The lack of a design storm could lead to the over - sizing of all storage and treatment parameters, adding unnecessary cost and space utilization obligations . Nonetheless, the CDM Report provides a realistic storage analysis that represents the minimum storage that would be required to implement the Proposed Rule, and that demonstrates that complying with the Proposed Rule would be impossible. Since issuing th e Proposed Rule, EPA has promulgated ELG standards for the construction and development source category that rely on a two - year/24 - hour design storm standard for treatment. See 40 C.F.R. § 450.22(b); see also 74 Fed. Reg. 62,996, 63,049 (Dec. 1, 2009).] Th ere is no such room at the Airport. To develop its storage capacity estimate, CDM first simulated ADF usage at Boston - Logan over the range of weather conditions experienced at the Airport during the winter deicing seasons from October 1948 through April 20 09 (using hourly precipitation, daily snowfall and daily temperature data from Boston - Logan, and assuming current operations and departure schedules).146 [FOOTNOTE: 146 See CDM Report at pp. 1 - 1

– 1 - 7.] It then identified a single design deicing season rep resenting a maximum storage needs scenario, and used the ADMM to quantify the deicing runoff volume and the biological oxygen demand (“BOD”) mass that would accumulate in hypothetical storage tanks during this modeled deicing season.147 [FOOTNOTE: 147 See id. at pp. 1 - 7

– 1 - 12.] Finally, based on this design season modeling, CDM quantified the required storage volumes, BOD load capture and flow capture that would be necessary to meet the requirements of the Proposed Rule.148 [FOOTNOTE: 148 See id. at pp. 2 - 1

– 2 - 9. In this part of its analysis, CDM simulated the disposal of deicing runoff from the two hypothetical storage tanks to the MWRA’s Deer Island Treatment Plant, assuming that each storage tank would discharge each day at maximum rates of 32.5 million gallons of deicing runoff per day and 33,000 pounds of BOD per day. See id. at p. 1 - 4. These assumptions were based on informal consultations between Massport and the MWRA; the MWRA has not indicated that it could or would accept such discharges from Bost on - Logan, and further discussions between Massport and the MWRA would be necessary to determine whether such discharges would be feasible, and if so, at what cost to Massport. See id. Gresham Smith & Partners used the result of this daily flow and BOD loa d modeling in its evaluation of the feasibility of using anaerobic fluidized bed treatment systems to treat all of the deicing runoff collected from Boston - Logan’s 60% collection efforts, as would be required by the Proposed Rule. See Section VI below. The total design season volume of deicing runoff from the conceptual Expanded Pad Juliet that CDM estimated would require treatment and disposal would be 19.1 million gallons. See CDM Report at p. 2 - 5.] CDM’s modeling analysis used the total area estimate dev eloped by CH2M HILL in its analysis of the conceptual Expanded Juliet Pad

– 25.4 acres, all562 impervious

– and assumed, as would be required by the Proposed Rule, that all aircraft departing Boston Logan during deicing conditions would be deiced on this pad. 149 [FOOTNOTE: 149 See id.] Based on its modeling, CDM concluded that to collect and store all of the deicing runoff from Expanded Juliet Pad, Boston - Logan would need approximately 4.3 million gallons of storage capacity.150 [FOOTNOTE: 150 See id. CDM also considered the three - pad scenario

– deicing runoff collection at the North Pad, East Pad and Expanded Juliet Pad

– but did not evaluate this scenario in detail. Based on the presumption that deicing of all departing aircraft would occur at one of these pa ds, based on wind direction and weather conditions, the total deicing runoff load generated would be the same. However, the aggregate required storage volume would be greater under the three - pad scenario than with the Expanded Juliet Pad as the sole centra lized deicing pad. See id.] CDM further concluded that if this runoff were stored in aboveground tanks with a storage capacity of 1.8 million gallons, similar to the aboveground fuel storage tanks installed at Boston - Logan in 1997 - 1998, Boston - Logan would need to find room for three such tanks.151 [FOOTNOTE: 151 See id. at p. 2 - 10.] As detailed in the Affidavit of Richard Bessom, the Program Manager for Horizontal Projects at Massport, based on his experience overseeing the design and construction of Boston - Logan’s aboveground fuel storage tank facility152 [FOOTNOTE: 152 This 1997 - 1998 project consisted of the construction of four above - ground pile - supported storage tanks, each tank capable of storing 1.8 million of fuel, for a total storage capacity of 7,21 8,960 gallons. Collocated with the storage facility is a small one - story operations and control building to monitor the product levels and provide testing. There are also two offloading facilities where tankers can deliver product to the tank farm and off load into the above ground tanks. See Bessom Affidavit, 3. ] and his knowledge of Boston - Logan, it would not be feasible to site aboveground storage tanks of this volume at Boston - Logan without displacing an existing or planned airport - related function loc ated on - site; there is no available space on the landside portion of the Airport shown in Figure 3A [SEE FIGURE IN MASSPORT SUBMITTAL 1227.2].153 [FOOTNOTE: 153 See id., 4 - 6. In this position, Mr. Bessom supervises six Project Managers in the Massport Cap ital Programs and Environmental Affairs Department who manage the design and construction of “horizontal” capital projects at Boston - Logan such as runways, roads, utilities and storage yards. See id., 1. He has served in this role for Massport for four yea rs. See id. From 1985 until he began this position, Mr. Bessom was a Project Manager in the same department, managing design and construction projects. See id.] Even if it were feasible to construct an aboveground tank farm to store 4.3 million gallons of deicing runoff at Boston - Logan, the cost would be about $28 million, based on the cost of building the Airport’s fuel storage tank facility.154 [FOOTNOTE: 154 See id., 10. Costs to construct the aboveground fuel storage tank facility in 1997 - 1998 totaled a bout $27,000,000, which would be about $47,000,000 in 2010 dollars (using a 4% escalation factor). See id. The $28 million cost estimate does not include any treatment facility or any underground distribution piping to a treatment facility or from a deicin g area. See id.] Moreover, according to Mr. Bessom, constructing underground storage tanks would be an enormous engineering challenge, in part because of the high water table at Boston - Logan, and would result in the displacement of the airport functions co nducted aboveground at the particular location for the duration of construction.155 [FOOTNOTE: 155 See id., 6.] In addition, the costs of constructing underground tanks would be exorbitant, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars.156 [FOOTNOTE: 156 See id.] Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ) SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constrained airports - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 19 As detailed in the Affidavit of Richard Bessom, it would be infeasible to build such a treatment system at Boston - Logan because of the Airport’s extreme space constraints.165 [FOOTNOTE: 165 See Bessom Affidavit at 8 .]563 Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports. Comments on the proposed requirements for ADF collection and treatment at existing airports are not applicable to the final regul ation. SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constrained airports - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 11 (PA NY&NJ) Individual airlines or management consortia control and operate the passenger terminals and adjacent ramps and alleyways at the Port Authority airports. Conversely, most other terminals at airports across the country are operated by the airport authority. Although all airlines’ operations must comply with the Airport Rules and Regulations (among other requirements), once a lease is signed, the Port Authority has minimal jurisdiction over the land uses developed within the airlines’ leaseholds. Specifically, the Port Authority could not use land leased to an airline to create a deicing pad for use by the entire airline community at its airports. As discussed in our later comments, this lack of jurisdiction limits the availability of land at our airports for d eicing pad systems and related infrastructure. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ) SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constra ined airports - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 16 JFK, LGA, and EWR have been in operation in some form since the first half of the 20th century, and are surrounded by water, highways, and dense urban development. The Port Authority cannot pick up and move JFK, LGA, or EWR to a different location with mor e land area. In addition, there is no opportunity to expand these airports for new airfield facilities (such as centralized deicing pads) or new infrastructure (such as cost - effective storage tanks for deicing fluid or on - site treatment systems). We must w ork to make the most out of the limited airfield areas that exist, and we must work closely with the airlines and the FAA to operate them as efficiently as possible. As noted in our later comments, the analysis supporting the Proposed Rule does not reflect the seriousness of the land availability constraints at our airports. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ) SPAC E_IMPACTS - Site constrained airports - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 24 The Proposed Rule refers to the TDD for further discussion on land availability, but the Port Authority was unable to locate such a discussion or an y supporting documentation. Staff of ACI - NA indicated to us that in a September 2009 meeting with EPA staff, ACI - NA requested evidence supporting the conclusion of land availability and received a copy of a February 7, 2008, memorandum to EPA from its cons ultant, ERG. This memorandum, which is not referenced in the TDD, was added to the docket on September 30, 2009 (one month after the NPRM), in the record section on cost estimates (not technical feasibility).564 Therefore, the EPA’s conclusion regarding land availability appears to be based entirely on the ERG memorandum. The Port Authority conducted a thorough search for other information in the docket to support the conclusion that adequate land is available for centralized pads at its airports, but did not find any such information. This reliance on one piece of analysis makes the adequacy of the ERG memorandum extremely important. Yet we believe that the ERG memorandum has serious inadequacies, as we will document in the following paragraphs. What is more t roublesome is that EPA ultimately relied on this memorandum for its conclusion of technical feasibility, which is central to the 60 percent ADF collection requirement in the Proposed Rule. Airport experts were not involved. EPA has not provided any evidenc e in the record that airport experts were involved in the preparation of the ERG memo.35 A search of the ERG Web site indicates that its industrial process experts may have prepared the memorandum.36 Although the ERG staff may be qualified in their own fie lds of expertise, the sizing and siting of deicing pads are efforts that require specialized qualifications in airport operations and planning. An understanding of aircraft movement, restricted areas of the airfield, runway use patterns, and FAA standards is required to make even the simplest determinations at a conceptual level. The ERG memo makes no reference to FAA standards on airfield design

— a glaring and potentially hazardous omission that indicates that the authors of the memo do not possess the requ ired qualifications to do such an analysis. Hence, its conclusions are arbitrary and capricious. EWR was not included in the analysis. The ERG memorandum considers the land availability for deicing pads at JFK and LGA, as well as Washington Reagan National Airport (“DCA”). The Proposed Rule notes that potentially, seven airports would need to install centralized deicing pads to comply with the rule.37 It is not clear how EPA concluded that adequate land would be available at the other four airports. (The qu ote from the Federal Register included above refers to review of airport site plans, but we could find no evidence of that review in the docket.38) One of those airports is EWR, so this lack of evidence or information supporting the conclusion is directly relevant to the Port Authority.39 Overall approach was inadequate. The memorandum uses data on annual departures, total deicing pad area, and the number of runways at three “sample airports” to determine the total pad area and minimum number of pads requir ed at JFK, LGA, and DCA. The authors then use Google Earth to “outline” potential deicing pad locations, and based on unexplained reasoning, conclude that the outlined locations are feasible for centralized pads. The memorandum concludes that, “Based on th e limited data available, it appears LGA, DCA and JFK airports have sufficient space available near the ends of runways to install aircraft deicing pads. Although the actual deicing pad locations and configurations would likely vary from those presented in this memorandum, this analysis indicates that even space limited airports can install some combination of deicing pads as one option to help achieve the target capture and control percentage for spent ADF.”40 An adequate analysis of potential locations fo r a centralized deicing pad would include, at a minimum, (1) review of runway use patterns during winter storm conditions, (2) analysis of runway configuration and access to runway ends, (3) analysis of peak - hour departures when deicing is required (snow a nd dry weather conditions), (4) consideration of aircraft mix and design aircraft size, (5) analysis of aircraft ground movement patterns (from arriving and departing aircraft), (6) analysis of potential deicing vehicle access routes, (7) consideration of FAA deicing pad design standards, (8) consideration of FAA - required separations between deicing pads and runways, taxiways, and navigational aids, (9) consideration of land constraints that could affect the placement of associated piping and storage facili ties, and (10) analysis of the potential need for secondary deicing given primary pad location and FAA - mandated holdover times. The ERG memorandum fails to consider any of these critical items in any level of detail. Response: See response to 1226.1, #1 64 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ). The ERG memo referenced in the comment pertained only to existing airports. Unlike existing airports, sponsors o f new airports can consider all relevant FAA requirements during the planning stage. See section 11.3 of the TDD.565 SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constrained airports - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - excerpts 26 and 28 It appears that the ERG memorandum used Google Earth to identify potential locations for deicing pads at JFK, LGA, and DCA: “Using Google Earth, ERG outlined potential deicing pad locations at LGA, DCA, and JFK that would incorporate existing taxiways.”43 Although Google Earth may be a user - friendly graphic format for presentation of the results, it is not adequate as the only (or even primary) tool for siting a deicing pad. At a minimum, the Airport Layout Plan (“ALP”) for each of the airports should have been used to identify potential locations. Other maps and diagrams that should have been considered include soils maps, utilities diagrams, and wetlands maps, among others. Use of those documents, even at a basic level, would have yielded essential informa tion regarding the constraints to locating centralized deicing pads at the Port Authority airports. ... The problem with this approach is illustrated further by the unique conditions and characteristics associated with each of the “sample” airports. DEN, the only major airport to have been built in the U.S. in the past 25 years, occupies about 34,000 acres (53 square miles).45 Given that it was a new airport with a large land area, airport designers specifically incorporated deicing pads in the optimal siz es and locations to match the airport’s needs. There are other characteristics of the DEN operation (including the ability for triple streams of aircraft to land simultaneously in instrument meteorological conditions) that make DEN an inappropriate airport for comparison. PIT occupies 10,000 acres

– much smaller than DEN but more than twice as large as JFK, more than 15 times the size of LGA, and more than 2,300 acres larger than JFK, EWR and LGA combined. A review of the Airport Diagram indicates that mos t of the commercial use deicing pads are adjacent to the passenger terminal facilities or are on aprons adjacent to other aviation facilities.46 These locations work because the airport layout allows for pads to be more centralized but also relatively clos e to the runway ends. (Two of the pads have fixed, pedestal - mounted booms, which would not be allowed at the remote pad locations at JFK and LGA identified by ERG.47) A review of the list of nonstop flights from PIT during August 200948 indicates that PIT served only four international destinations with an average of approximately four departures per day, indicating that the fleet mix at PIT is not comparable to the fleet mix at JFK, a major international airport. DTW occupies about 6,700 acres, about 36 pe rcent larger than JFK and almost 10 times the size of LGA. A key component of DTW’s deicing facilities is a 70 - million - gallon pond that collects the runoff from its four remote deicing pads; availability for storage was not considered in the ERG memo, whic h we view as an egregious omission, and one that has crucial benefit/cost implications.49 Although the four pads at DTW are characterized as “remote,” the Airport Diagram indicates that two of the pads are adjacent to the passenger terminals. 50 The ERG me morandum identified remote locations for deicing pads at JFK and LGA, and should have based its comparison on airports that had true remote pads. In some respect, EPA’s use of a “model” airport illustrates the Agency’s inappropriate reliance on how it deve loped ELGs for highly similar industrial processes (as discussed above). The examples above that demonstrate the significant differences between EPA’s “model” airports and the “real world” truly touch on only certain of the many significant differences tha t exist within the aviation transportation industry. EPA must recognize that developing deicing ELGs requires an entirely new method of promulgating such standards that respects and accounts for these differences. Clearly, the approach in EPA’s Proposed Ru le will not lead to a workable regulatory outcome. Response: See responses to 1226.1, #1 64 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ) and 1 232.1 - 24 (above).566 SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constrained airports - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 32 The ERG memo identifies three “feasible” locations for deicing pads at JFK: (1) south of Runway 31R and east of Runway 22R, incorporating Taxi way Y; (2) north of Runway 13R, incorporating Taxiway PD; and (3) north of Runway 31L and east of Runway 4L, incorporating Taxiways Y and J. There are a number of problems with the locations identified, as follows. The first pad location would be associate d with use of Runway 31R and/or 22R. Neither runway end is the primary runway used for departures during winter storm conditions (Runway 4L is used most often). Sometimes, Runway 31R is used when the wind shifts during the latter stages of a typical winter storm. Runway 22R is used very rarely for departures during winter storms. The pad location might be appropriate for aircraft traveling from the cargo area at the north end of the airport down to Runway 4L for takeoff (if the subsequent time of taxiing ca n remain within FAA - mandated holdover times

– which, given the congestion at JFK, is unlikely). The pad location might also be appropriate during the times when airlines are deicing aircraft but winter storm conditions are not occurring (again, if winds re quire or allow the use of 31R or 22R). It appears that the first location is directly adjacent to Runways 31R and 22R. A portion of the pad location would be within the FAA - mandated Runway Safety Areas (“RSAs”) for both runways. ERG, again, indicated no kn owledge or understanding of FAA airport design standards in the referenced memo. The RSAs at JFK are obstruction - free 500 - foot - wide areas (250 feet on either side of the runway centerlines), and 1,000 feet past either runway end that are intended to reduce the risk of damage to aircraft in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway. FAR Part 139.309(b)(4) requires that no objects be in the safety areas except those required due to their function. Aircraft parked for the purpose of d eicing are not allowed within an RSA, and deicing pads could not be located in any portion of an RSA. A portion of the pad location would also be within the Object Free Areas (“OFAs”) for both runways. The OFAs at JFK are 800 - foot - wide areas (400 feet on e ither side of the runway centerlines) that enhance the safety of aircraft operations by restricting objects, except for those that need to be located in the OFA for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes. Parked aircraft are considered to b e non - essential for purposes of the OFA.73 Fixed equipment for deicing pads would not be allowed within either the RSA or the OFA, and would be considered an obstruction within the Primary Surface for each runway (the Primary Surface, one of the imaginary surfaces defined in FAR Part 77, is intended to protect aircraft from object penetration in proximity to the runway).74 The FAA Flight Procedures office would analyze installation of fixed equipment for deicing pads as possible obstacles under Terminal Ins trument Procedures (“TERPS”) surfaces. TERPS surfaces protect current and proposed approach and departure paths from penetrating obstacles. An obstacle that penetrates a TERPS surface could affect arrival minimums and/or departure profiles. Aircraft access ing this particular proposed pad location from the passenger terminal area would have to cross Runway 4L - 22R; aircraft accessing the location from the cargo area at the northern end of the airport would have to cross Runway 13L - 31R. If wind conditions requ ired departures on Runway 31R, the aircraft could leave the pad location and proceed to the runway end. If the aircraft had to use another runway for departure, they would have to make a second runway crossing. Crossing an active runway requires additional radio communications, clearance, and additional time at a minimum. Multiple runway crossings could lead to aircraft delays (as discussed in our later comments). Adding to the number of runway crossings raises the risk of runway incursions (unauthorized in trusions into the runway), which is a serious safety issue. The safety issue is a particular concern during winter storm conditions because visibility is often low. Reducing the risk of runway incursions is one of the FAA’s top priorities.75 In addition, o ne of the FAA’s design principles for the taxiway system at an airport is to minimize runway crossings,76 but the ERG memo suggests doing just the opposite. The pad location would incorporate portions of Taxiways Y and YA. Aircraft could no longer use thos e taxiway segments for movement through that part of the airfield, and bypass taxiway capacity would need to be provided. In addition, the first pad location could obstruct the line of sight between the Airport Traffic Control Tower (which is located at Te rminal 4) and the end of Runway 31R. Such obstruction would567 raise still more safety issues and would be in conflict with AC 150/5300 - 14B, Section 2 - 2. The second pad location would be associated with use of Runway 13R. This runway end is not typically used during winter storm conditions. The pad location might be appropriate for aircraft traveling from the passenger terminal area to Runway 4L for takeoff (if the subsequent taxi can remain within holdover times). The pad location also might be appropriate wh en airlines are deicing aircraft but winter storm conditions are not occurring (again, if winds require or allow the use of 13R). It appears that the second location is directly adjacent to Runway 13R. A portion of the pad location would be within the RSA for the runway. Most of the pad location would be within the OFA for the runway. As with the first location, fixed equipment for deicing pads would not be allowed within either the RSA or the OFA, and would be considered an obstruction within the Primary S urface for the runway. The pad location would incorporate all of Taxiway PD. Aircraft could no longer use those taxiway segments for movement through that part of the airfield, and bypass taxiway capacity would need to be provided, which is not feasible. I n addition, it appears that the pad location is directly adjacent to Taxiways Q, PE and PC, violating FAA separation standards between deicing facilities and taxiways. The second pad location could obstruct the line of sight between the Airport Traffic Con trol Tower and the end of Runway 13R. Such obstruction would raise safety issues and would be in conflict with AC 150/5300 - 14B, Section 2 - 2. Generally speaking, the third pad location would appear to have limited merits from an operational standpoint, beca use it would be associated with use of Runways 4L and 4R (as well as 31L). However, there are problems with the third pad location as well. It appears that the third location is directly adjacent to Runways 31L and 4L. A portion of the pad location would b e within the RSA and OFA for both runways. As with the other locations, fixed equipment for deicing pads would not be allowed within either the RSA or the OFA, and would be considered an obstruction within the Primary Surface for the runways. Aircraft acce ssing the pad location from the passenger terminal area would have to cross Runway 4L - 22R; aircraft accessing the location from the cargo area at the northern end of the airport would have to cross that runway and Runway 13L - 31R. To reach the departure th reshold of Runway 4L, aircraft would then have to cross Runway 31L and 4L again. As noted previously, the need to make multiple runway crossings raises safety issues, particularly during winter storm conditions. The pad location would incorporate portions of Taxiways J and Y. Aircraft could no longer use those taxiway segments for movement through that part of the airfield, and bypass taxiway capacity would need to be provided, which is not feasible. The third pad location could obstruct the line of sight b etween the Airport Traffic Control Tower and the end of Runway 31L. Such obstruction would raise safety issues and would be in conflict with AC 150/5300 - 14B, Section 2 - 2. [FOOTNOTE: 74 The prohibition on fixed equipment raises an additional issue with rega rd to the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule and supporting documentation refer repeatedly to “centralized deicing pads” as the best available technology for 60 percent collection. According to FAA AC 150/5300 - 14B, centralized deicing facilities include a de icing crew shelter and co - located support facilities such as a fixed fluid applicator. It appears that the EPA may be referring to remote deicing facilities, which do not have fixed components.] Response: See response to 1226.1, #1 64 (ATA) (code TECH_FO RCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ) SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constrained airports - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 33 The ERG memo identifies three “feasible” locations for deicing pads at LGA: (1) southwest of Runway 31 and Taxiway B, incorporating multiple taxiways; (2) southeast of Runway 4, incorporating Taxiway B; and (3) northwest of Runway 4 - 22 and southwest of Runway 13, incorporating mu ltiple taxiways. There are a number of problems with the locations identified, as follows. The first pad location would be associated with use of Runway 31. Sometimes, Runway 31 is used during a winter storm when wind568 conditions dictate, in combination wit h the use of Runway 4 for arrivals. The pad location might also be appropriate for aircraft traveling from the US Airways and Delta passenger terminals to Runway 4 for takeoff (if the subsequent taxi can remain within holdover times). The pad location migh t be appropriate when airlines are deicing aircraft but winter storm conditions are not occurring (again, if winds require or allow the use of 31). It appears that the first pad location is outside of the RSA for Runway 31, but may be within the OFA for th e runway. The pad location also would be within the Primary Surface for the runway. As with the JFK locations, fixed equipment for deicing pads would not be allowed within either the RSA or OFA, and would be considered an obstruction within the Primary Sur face. The pad location would incorporate portions of Taxiways B, M, N, V, and Z. Aircraft could no longer use those taxiway segments for movement through that part of the airfield, and bypass taxiway capacity would need to be provided, which is not feasibl e. The first pad location could obstruct the line of sight between the Airport Traffic Control Tower (which is located near the Central Terminal Building) and the end of Runway 31. Such obstruction would raise safety issues and would be in conflict with AC 150/5300 - 14B, Section 2 - 2. The second pad location would be associated with the use of Runway 4, which is used during winter storms. It appears that the second location is directly adjacent to Runway 4. A portion of the pad location would be within the RS A and OFA for the runway. Fixed equipment for deicing pads would not be allowed within either the RSA or the OFA, and would be considered an obstruction within the Primary Surface. It also appears that the second pad location would displace the PAPI (Preci sion Approach Path Indicator) for Runway 4. The PAPI is a navigational aid that furnishes the pilot with visual approach slope information to provide guidance for safe descent. Typically the PAPI is located on the left side of the runway, but is to the rig ht of Runway 4 because of lack of space on the left side. The pad location would incorporate portions of Taxiways B, C, Y, and CY. Aircraft could no longer use those taxiway segments for movement through that part of the airfield, and bypass taxiway capaci ty would need to be provided. Taxiway B is the main access route for aircraft to taxi from the Central Terminal Building to Runway 4. The second pad location could obstruct the line of sight between the Airport Traffic Control Tower and the end of Runway 4 . Such obstruction would raise safety issues and would be in conflict with AC 150/5300 - 14B, Section 2 - 2. The third pad location would be associated with use of Runways 13 and 22. These runway ends are rarely used during winter storm conditions. The pad loc ation might be appropriate for aircraft traveling from the Marine Air Terminal (west of Runway 4) to Runway 4 for takeoff (if the subsequent taxi can remain within holdover times). The pad location also might be appropriate when airlines are deicing aircra ft but winter storm conditions are not occurring (again, if winds require the use of 13 or 22). It appears that the third location is directly adjacent to Runways 13 and 4 - 22. A portion of the pad location would be within the RSA and OFA for both runways. As with the other locations, fixed equipment for deicing pads would not be allowed within either the RSA or the OFA, and would be considered an obstruction within the Primary Surface for the runways. The pad location would incorporate portions of Taxiways G, P, AA, BB, and CC. Aircraft no longer could use those taxiway segments for movement through that part of the airfield, and bypass taxiway capacity would need to be provided, which is not feasible. These taxiways are important because Runway 13 is used h eavily for departures throughout the year. The third pad location could obstruct the line of sight between the Airport Traffic Control Tower and the end of Runway 13. Such obstruction would raise safety issues and would be in conflict with AC 150/5300 - 14B, Section 2 - 2. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. )569 SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constrained airports - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 34 Our airport locations and adjacent uses place major constraints on airport expansion for deicing pads or other facilities. All three of our major airports are within the fully urbanized and densely po pulated New York area. JFK is bounded in part by Rockaway Boulevard, the Nassau Expressway (State Route 878), and the Van Wyck Expressway (I - 678). These roadways separate JFK from densely populated residential neighborhoods and offer no room for expansion. JFK is also bounded by Jamaica Bay, Thurston Basin, and Bergen Basin. Jamaica Bay and the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge are part of the Gateway National Recreation Area. LGA is directly adjacent to Bowery Bay, Flushing Bay, and the Grand Central Parkway. Th e adjacent water and roadways separate LGA from densely populated residential neighborhoods. EWR is directly adjacent to a complicated network of highways, including Interstate 95, Interstate 78, and U.S. Routes 1 and 9; at least four interchanges directly abut the airport. Port Newark and Newark Bay are adjacent to Interstate 95, and residential neighborhoods abut EWR to the southwest. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requiremen ts for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ) SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constrained airports - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 35 Size and generalized land uses limit available locations. The current ALPs (enclosed as exhibits) for the three major airports show the layout and existing land uses on the airports. JFK covers approximately 4,930 acres, including 880 acres in the Central Terminal Area; LGA covers approximately 680 acres; and EWR covers approximately 2,000 acres. Generalized land uses on the airports include the airfield (runways and taxiways, associated navigational aids), the passenger terminals, public parking facilities, the light rail (“AirTrain”) systems at JFK and EWR, general aviation facilities, ai r cargo facilities, aircraft and GSE maintenance facilities, airline support facilities, flight kitchens, the FAA Airport Traffic Control Tower, utility infrastructure, aircraft fuel storage, Port Authority administration offices, miscellaneous Port Author ity facilities, and others. As shown on the ALPs, much of the land within the airport boundaries would not be accessible for use for a deicing pad, due to distance from the airfield or the presence of multiple uses blocking access to the airfield. In addit ion, much of the land adjacent to the existing runways and taxiways is under lease and occupied. Enclosed as exhibits are generalized land use maps for JFK, LGA, and EWR. In general, the maps show that the airports do not have large areas of vacant land ad jacent to the airfield. The ramps adjacent to the passenger terminals are within the leaseholds of the individual airlines, and are not within the jurisdiction of the Port Authority. Lands outside the passenger terminal area and adjacent to the airfield ar e developed with cargo facilities, hangars, and ancillary uses. Response: See response to 1226.1, #1 64 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. )570 SPACE_IMPAC TS - Site constrained airports - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 36 A key characteristic of the airports is that the Port Authority does not operate or control a vast majority of the passenger terminals. The terminals and a djacent ramps are controlled and operated by individual airlines or management consortia. Although all airline operations must comply with the Airport Rules and Regulations (among other requirements), the Port Authority has minimal jurisdiction over the la nd uses developed within the airlines’ leaseholds. This characteristic limits the availability of land at the airports for Port Authority - controlled, centralized deicing facilities. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TEC H_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ) SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constrained airports - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 37 As we noted in the review of the ERG memorandum, there are a number of FAA standards that apply to the siting of deicing facilities. Compliance with safety areas, object clearing criteria, taxilane and taxiway separation standards, Airport Traffic Control Tower line - of - sight criteria, and oth er standards limits the areas available for a deicing pads In addition, portions of the airfields cannot be used for deicing because they are within areas reserved for the operation of runway instrument landing systems (the navigational aids themselves, j et - blast - restricted areas around the navaids, and glide slope, localizer, and touchdown critical areas). Enclosed as exhibits are three simplified maps showing these “off - limits” areas at JFK, LGA, and EWR. At JFK, the only lands of any size outside of th e “off - limits” areas (and outside of the passenger terminal gates and ramps, which are within the airlines’ leaseholds) are the areas within the rectangle defined by Runways 4 - 22, 13L - 31R and 13R - 31L. It would not be feasible to construct deicing facilitie s in those areas, for the taxiway flow, runway crossing, and other operational reasons identified elsewhere in these comments. At LGA, the only land not identified as “off limits” is the employee parking lot northwest of Runway 4 - 22. Again, this site would not be feasible for deicing in compliance with the Proposed Rule, for the reasons discussed elsewhere in these comments. In addition, the employee lot would have to be relocated off airport, resulting in high land - acquisition costs. At EWR, the primary ar ea available is the aircraft parking area already used by Continental Airlines for deicing; as discussed elsewhere, this area is not large enough to serve Continental’s deicing needs (and would not be feasible for use by aircraft from Terminals A and B). Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ) and 1 232.1 - 24 (above). SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constrained airports - operat ional impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 39 The taxiway configurations at all three of our major airports limit the flexibility to move aircraft to particular locations. Enclosed as exhibits are maps showing the typical ground movement pa tterns during a winter storm. At JFK, Taxiways A and B are the two major taxiways used by aircraft to move to and from the passenger terminal area and the runways. Movement on Taxiway A occurs in a clockwise flow,571 and on Taxiway B, in a counterclockwise fl ow. In general, the taxiway(s) used by departing aircraft depend on the location of the aircraft gate relative to the departure runway end. However, the taxiway configuration at JFK presents certain constraints. For example, Runway 4L (the primary runway e nd used for departures during winter storms) has a parallel taxiway (Taxiway K) adjacent only to the west side of the runway end, with a small holding area near the departure threshold and one perpendicular connecting taxiway. All aircraft taxiing to depar t on Runway 4 must use Taxiway K. Runway 4R (used for winter storm arrivals, plus departures when 4L is taken out of service) does not have a parallel taxiway. Aircraft taxiing to depart on Runway 4R must cross Runways 4L - 22R and 13R - 31L. The taxiways para llel to Runway 13R - 31L are both inboard (on the passenger terminal side) of that runway, and do not have adequate separation (with each other and the runway) for the largest (ADG VI) aircraft serving JFK.81 Aircraft are restricted in their use of those tax iways. At LGA, Taxiways A and B are the two major taxiways used by aircraft to move between the main passenger terminal area and the runways. (Taxiways AA and BB also provide access for aircraft using the Marine Air Terminal.) Again, the taxiway(s) used by departing aircraft depend on the location of the aircraft gate relative to the departure runway end. As with JFK, the taxiway configuration at LGA presents certain constraints. For example, there is one parallel taxiway (Taxiway B) along the inboard (sout heast) side of Runway 4 - 22, with no holding area near the Runway 4 end (a primary departure runway during winter storms). All aircraft taxiing from the main terminal area to depart on Runway 4 must use Taxiway B. There is one parallel taxiway (Taxiway R) a long the southeast side of the Runway 22 end, and no taxiway on the northwest side of that runway end. Therefore, aircraft taxiing from the Marine Air Terminal to depart on Runway 22 must cross Runways 13 - 31 and 4 - 22. The limited taxiway system at LGA mean s that taxiways must be used for aircraft staging prior to departure; often, multiple aircraft are in a queue on the taxiway leading to the runway threshold. At EWR, much of the taxiway system does not comply with FAA standards for ADG V aircraft (such as the Airbus 340 or Boeing 747). This situation limits aircraft movement on the airfield. In addition, Runways 4L, 4R, 22L and 22R all have displaced thresholds. This is relevant because Precision Obstacle Free Zones (“POFZs”) are present just before the lan ding thresholds. The POFZ is a volume of airspace established to provide a greater measure of safety for pilots and their landing aircraft in the immediate threshold area. Within a POFZ, objects and equipment, especially aircraft and ground vehicles, are r estricted from encroaching on the airspace. These constraints to aircraft movement also represent constraints to the locations of deicing pads. If aircraft can use only one taxiway to reach a particular runway end, a deicing pad cannot be sited where it wo uld block that route. Such a site would be operationally infeasible. Similarly, if there is only one taxi route available, a deicing pad cannot be sited where it would require use of a more circuitous route to reach that taxiway (for example, by making air craft go in a different direction to deice and then come back to access the main taxiway). Such a site would place additional burdens on controllers and pilots and would likely create additional aircraft delays. If one taxi route is heavily used, a deicing pad cannot be sited where it would shift additional aircraft onto that taxiway; such a location again would result in additional operational burdens and delays. If the taxiway configuration requires that aircraft must make at least one runway crossing to get to a runway end for takeoff, a deicing pad should not be sited where it would require additional runway crossings. Such a location would raise safety issues. Response: See response to 1226.1, #1 64 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ) SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constrained airports - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 41 A related issue is the location of the passenger terminal facilities relative to the taxiway system and runway ends, and the taxiway routes and flows that result. The situation at EWR provides a clear572 example. The aircraft parking area north of EWR Termina l C is already used by Continental for deicing, and would be a potential candidate for a centralized deicing pad location (although of a size as to not be able to accommodate all departures at any one time). Instituting airport - wide deicing at this locatio n would require aircraft from Terminals A and B to taxi to the north end of the airfield for deicing, and then back to the south end of the airfield to take off on Runway 4L (the primary runway used during winter storms). This situation would result in add itional taxiing time and fuel use by the airlines at Terminals A and B, additional aircraft use of Taxiways A and B, and congestion near the terminal buildings as aircraft queue for use of the deicing pad. There would be a conflict between arriving aircraf t traversing to terminal areas and departing aircraft traveling in the opposite direction traversing on the same taxiway to the deicing pad near Terminal C. There are currently seven operating passenger terminal buildings at JFK. Siting a deicing pad at or near Runway 13R might be feasible for aircraft from Terminals 1 through 4 (even for departures from Runway 4L). However, aircraft from Terminals 5 and 7 (Terminal 6 is currently not occupied) would have to taxi around the passenger terminal area, out to t he northwest end of the airfield, and then back to the southeast to reach Runway 4L. Cargo aircraft using facilities at the northeast end of the airport would be faced with even longer taxiing distances. The taxiing distance issue points to either (1) remo te pads at or near all of the runway ends or (2) centralized pads at or near the aircraft gates as the solution that would make the most sense operationally. As pointed out in the review of the ERG memorandum, however, there is no space available at the ru nway ends at our airports. And as indicated in our prior comments, space in the terminal area is severely limited. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collecti on or treatment at existing airports. ) SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constrained airports - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 42 JFK: Port Authority studies. There have been various efforts to consider potential locations for central ized deicing at JFK. A study prepared in 2001 considered three sites for a seven - position, Boeing 474 - 400 - (ADG V - ) capable deicing pad. A seven - position pad would not serve the 24 to 28 aircraft departures that could occur during a winter storm, and a pad sized for the Boeing 747 - 400 would not be adequate to accommodate the largest aircraft allowed to serve JFK. In addition, the sites considered would serve only departures from 4L and (potentially) 31R. For these reasons and others, the pads studied would not fulfill the requirements of the Proposed Rule. In addition, this referenced study did not address the cost of storage and treatment/disposal of the collected material. Nevertheless, the study is referenced here to illustrate some of the land availabili ty and other issues associated with siting a pad at JFK.82 [FOOTNOTE: 82 The Louis Berger Group, Inc., JFK International Airport, Primary Deicing Pad Feasibility Study, prepared for the Port Authority of NY & NJ, May 2001.] The three locations considered i n the study were: (1) south of Runway 13R - 31L, near the intersection with (and west of) 4L; (2) directly west of Taxiway K (west of 4L and south of 31L); and (3) between Runways 4L and 4R, on either side of Runway 31L. The 2001 study and a subsequent revie w by Port Authority staff identified the following issues associated with each of these locations: (1) The location south of Runway 13R - 31L would be within the RSA and OFA for Runway 13R - 31L. As noted previously, aircraft parked for the purpose of deicing are not allowed within an RSA, and parked aircraft are considered to be non - essential for purposes of the OFA. In addition, the location would restrict the use of Runway 13R - 31L, given that (to be oriented to depart from 4L) aircraft on the pad would be p arked with their tails closest to the runway. A location south of 13R - 31L and near 4L would interfere with the ILS glide slope for 31L, thus restricting arrivals on that runway. The location would require us to fill in portions of Jamaica Bay, which would be problematic. (2) The location west of Runway 4L would require substantial fill in Jamaica Bay. Although there are fewer operational issues with this location, the requirement for fill is a major financial,573 legal, and environmental issue that cannot be d iscounted. (3) The location between Runways 4L and 4R could place widebody aircraft within the approach surface to Runway 31L, thus limiting use of the pad. The pad would be within the Runway Safety Area and Object Free Area for Runway 13R - 31L. Some of the aircraft on the pad would be parked with their tails closest to Runway 13R - 31L, thus restricting use of that runway. It appears that the location would displace or interfere with an ILS localizer and ILS DME. The location would require fill in Jamaica Bay . All of the options would require aircraft to cross a runway to access the pad and/or access the departure runway. If the runway was active, crossing it could result in operational delays; multiple runway crossings also could raise safety issues. For all locations, the proximity to active runways likely means that fixed equipment (such as deicing fluid booms) could not be used. The use of mobile deicing trucks raises a number of safety and operational issues related to multiple trucks within the aircraft o perations area. As shown, there are physical, regulatory, and operational issues associated with any adequately sized deicing pad near Runway 4L. However, the need to place fill within Jamaica Bay is a major issue with legal and environmental implications. Based on all of the issues noted, a deicing pad in the locations studied in 2001 would not be feasible. Port Authority staff is evaluating the potential for a 10 - position, Aircraft Design Group VI - capable deicing pad on an approximately 46 - acre site north of Runway 13R (in an area known as the Hangar 12 site).83 Part of this site is used for JFK’s infrared deicing facility; the remainder of the site is occupied by several buildings. One of those buildings, Hangar 12, has been authorized for demolition in t he Port Authority’s current Capital Plan. Funds have been made available for demolition only at this stage. Further planning and/or preparation of the site for any aeronautical use (aircraft parking, deicing, etc.) would be need to be done in a future stag e. The preliminary conceptual studies have identified several issues with respect to the Hangar 12 site. First, the Runway 4L threshold is almost two miles from the nearest point within the Hangar 12 site. This distance would allow aircraft to taxi to Runw ay 4L within FAA - required holdover times under most weather conditions, but might be too far to taxi under certain poor winter weather conditions. At the least, use of the site would lead to additional fuel burn (with associated operational, economic and a ir quality impacts) because aircraft would be required to taxi in one direction for deicing, and then in the opposite direction to reach the runway for takeoff. A related issue is the taxiway configuration and use adjacent to the Hangar 12 site. As noted p reviously, the taxiways parallel to Runway 13R - 31L (Q and P) do not have adequate separation (with each other and the runway) for the largest aircraft serving JFK.84 Aircraft are restricted in their use of those taxiways when the largest aircraft are using that part of the airfield. Directing additional operations to that part of the airfield would lead to operational complications and aircraft delay. At a minimum, Taxiways Q and P would need to be shifted to provide adequate separation. Shifting the taxiwa ys would cause encroachments on leaseholds adjacent to the airfield and would require the demolition of several buildings and the relocation of fuel farms and other fuel supply and distribution infrastructure. As noted previously, the site itself is occupi ed by several buildings. It appears likely that Hangar 12 will be demolished, but funds have not been authorized for the demolition of the other buildings present. The use of the Hangar 12 site and other building sites for deicing activities creates opport unity costs for the Port Authority because those sites no longer would be available for revenue producing uses. Even if these issues were resolved, the Hangar 12 site would provide only 10 positions for deicing. With 10 positions, a pad might not be adequ ate to serve the 24 to 28 departures that could occur during winter storm conditions. During dry weather conditions, there would be a higher number of departures but pad use still would be required for any deicing; dry weather deicing requirements also cou ld exceed the capacity of the pad. In addition, the pad would not be feasible for dry weather deicing when the north side of the airfield (Runways 22R or 31R) is used for departure. Under the Proposed Rule, use of the infrared deicing facility on the Hanga r 12 site would not qualify under the primary path toward compliance (use of centralized deicing pads). The $13 - million facility either would have to be demolished, or the Port Authority would be required to demonstrate the effectiveness of the facility to regulators. Either way, the Proposed Rule results in a burden to the Port Authority because it does not recognize an innovative technology for reducing ADF use. Another option discussed by Port Authority staff is the construction of a deicing pad between Runways 4L and 4R, in Jamaica Bay. From an operational standpoint, such a location would present several advantages, including the ability to serve574 departures on Runway 4L and 4R, as well as Runway 31L. As mentioned previously, however, construction within Jamaica Bay presents a number of serious environmental, financial, and political issues. The Port Authority is preparing a Passenger Facility Charge (“PFC”) application for a centralized aircraft deicing facility study. The objective of the project is to advance the planning for a new centralized deicing facility at JFK that will enhance safety and operational efficiency of the airport while improving the Port Authority’s ability to manage deicing fluid effluent. The project will examine the operations and infrastructure feasibility of constructing a centralized deicing facility at JFK. The project also will assess impacts to the airport infrastructure, roadway network, aircraft operations, and avoidance in delays.85 The PFC application demonstrates the Por t Authority’s commitment to improving deicing fluid management. However, it does not indicate that compliance with the Proposed Rule (or even construction of a centralized or remote deicing facility) is feasible. The difficulties in siting a deicing pad at JFK are indicated by the lack of endorsement from airline representatives who have attended deicing pad meetings with Port Authority staff on multiple occasions.86 Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does n ot establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ) SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constrained airports - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 43 LGA: Port Authority studies. A study was conducted for the Port Authority in 2007 to evaluate potential methods for reducing deicer discharges. The study was notable for what it did not include: any evaluation of potential locations for a centralized or remote deicing pad. As noted in the study, “there is no room to expand the airfield infrastructure with additional taxiways or remote deicing pads.”87 The study did evaluate the potential for use of an infrared deicing facility at LGA. The study refers to an internal Port Authority evaluation of potential sites for an infrared facility. The preferred site in that evaluation was the site of Hangar 1. As noted in the 2007 study, installation of an infrared facility at that location would require demolition of Hangars 1 through 5; relocation of Security Guard Post #1, warehouse space, automobile parking, and fuel truck parking; and realignment of an airport road. Replacement locations would have to be identified for those facilities. For the hangars in particular, relocation would be difficult because those building s are the sites of American Airlines’ baggage makeup and maintenance functions. The resulting infrared operation, with one bay, would handle up to four aircraft an hour at best, well below the number of hourly departures (even during winter storm condition s).88 Although a deicing pad at the Hangar 1 location was not evaluated, informal discussions with Port Authority staff indicate that the Hangar 1 site would not be able to accommodate enough aircraft to comply with the Proposed Rule.89 Port Authority staf f also considered an area northwest of Runway 4 - 22 for the location of an infrared deicing facility. This area is not conducive to operational efficiency as aircraft would need to taxi from the terminals to this site, and then taxi back the length of the r unway to depart. The taxiway system that exists could not accommodate such movements. As considered, the facility would require the relocation of multiple remote communications functions. In addition, the facility would displace aircraft parking spaces, wh ich are crucial at LGA, in particular for helping to minimize aircraft delays. As with the facility at Hangar 1, this operation would not be able to serve all hourly departures. Again, a deicing pad at the northwest location was not evaluated, but informal discussions with Port Authority staff indicate that the site would not be able to accommodate enough aircraft to comply with the Proposed Rule.90 [FOOTNOTE: 87 Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, Deicing Discharge Minimization Study for LaGuardia Air port, prepared by Jacobs Consultancy, May 2007. This study is referenced only to provide relevant information about land availability constraints at LGA.]575 Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establi sh uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ) SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constrained airports - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 44 EWR: Port Authority studies. There are no studies of potential sites for deicing pads at EWR. As noted previously, the aircraft parking area north of EWR Terminal C is already used by Continental for deicing. The area would need to be modified to provide c ollection, but such modification is considered technically feasible. Continental is conducting its own analysis of deicing pad capacity at EWR; based on the preliminary results, the analysis is expected to conclude that the parking area does not provide en ough capacity for Continental’s own deicing needs.91 In addition, the Terminal C area would not work for deicing aircraft from Terminals A and B due to interference with aircraft taxiing patterns. A centralized pad to accommodate the remaining departures w ould need 12 to 15 positions. A location at the southern end of the airfield would not be feasible because (1) a pad adjacent to Runway 4L would be too close to the runway to comply with applicable FAA standards, (2) queues into the area would interfere wi th aircraft taxi patterns adjacent to the terminal buildings, (3) queues on the taxiways also could interfere with aircraft arrivals on Runways 4L and 4R, due to new rules regarding obstructions caused by Group V and larger aircraft, (4) a pad location clo ser to Terminal A would raise height and obstruction issues, and/or would interfere with aircraft movement in the terminal area, and (5) use of a southern location large enough accommodate the required number of positions would require relocation of the Fe deral Express cargo facility at EWR. Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ) SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constrained airpo rts - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 48 The Port Authority asserts that the concept of a “standard” definition of land availability is suspect. Land availability at a particular airport is highly specific to the conditions at that airport. In addition, land availability for deicing pads cannot be separated from the context and characteristics of deicing, which are to a great extent climate - specific, and thus outside of an airport operator’s control. Further, land availabili ty is subject to a host of FAA standards and regulations that would greatly influence any definition EPA might try to develop. Although the EPA did not formulate a definition of land availability, it used a flawed memorandum to conclude that adequate land would be available at JFK and LGA, and thus imposed a definition by default. The comments in this section demonstrate that there are major constraints to land availability at all three of our major airports. We have spent considerable time commenting on th is issue because the EPA’s flawed conclusions regarding land availability are central to the choice of centralized pads as BAT, and thus to the Proposed Rule itself. Regardless of EPA’s conclusions, the fact remains that the Port Authority cannot install c entralized deicing pads that would comply with the proposed deicing ELG standards. The absence of any other known technology that would meet those standards leaves the Port Authority airports in an untenable position between serving the public’s need for s afe and available air transportation and complying with EPA’s technology mandates.576 Response: See response to 1226.1, #164 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airpo rts. ) SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constrained airports - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 78 Although EPA conducted a feasibility study on land availability for deicing pads (a flawed study as discussed in these comments),169 ther e was no analysis conducted on the feasibility of land available at airports for storing millions of gallons of ADF - contaminated storm water. Lacking time and resources, the Port Authority did not conduct a modeling analysis to estimate the volume of ADF - c ontaminated storm water that would have to be stored at each airport, but it is anticipated that the amount could be several million gallons. As an estimate, the Port Authority calculated that storing 1 million gallons of storm water would require about 0. 61 acre of land, assuming the tank depth is five feet in the ground. This estimate provides a general sense of the amount of land that would be needed to store several million gallons of ADF - contaminated storm water at each of our airports. JFK, EWR, and L GA are land - constrained airports (as discussed in detail previously) and pose a real challenge in storing millions of gallons of ADF - contaminated storm water for on - site treatment. EPA failed to evaluate and address this issue in the Proposed Rule. Respo nse: See response to 1226.1, #1 64 (ATA) (code TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. ) SPACE_IMPACTS - Site constrained airports - operational impacts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1240.1 - 96 EPA Must Account for the Significant Costs for Land Constrained Airports. As detailed elsewhere in these comments and in the comments of entities operating land constrained airports, meeting the proposed collection requirements without undergoing significant costs (and operation changes) will be challenging, if not impossible. Land constrained airports have limited (if any) options available for locating deicing pads, necessary storage and conveyance, and treatment s ystems. With the additional constraints imposed by critical safety and operational requirements, an airport may be forced to consider options such as acquiring, relocating and/or demolishing existing infrastructure, some of which may currently provide airp ort revenue. Even potential locations for siting deicing pads may not be large enough to accommodate the airports deicing needs or they may be located in areas that are not operationally ideal (e.g., require taxiing across active runways or at the opposite of the runway departure end). At airports constrained by surrounding water, the only option for meeting safety and operation needs could require filling in waterways. Such an endeavor is not without significant (and general prohibitive) environmental, fin ancial, and political impacts. EPA has made no effort to account for the unique, and substantial, costs these land constrained airports will face in attempting to meet the requirements of the Proposed Rule. Response: See response to 1226.1, #1 64 (ATA) (c ode TECH_FORCING). ( The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports.577 SUPPORT_BAN - Support ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1189.1 - 4 Restriction of the use of airfield deicing pr oducts that contain UREA is a reasonable restriction. Other products are available and impact on airports that deice should not be significant. Response: EPA agrees with the commenter. SUPPORT_BAN - Support ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1192.1 - 4 The proposed rule appropriately recommends product replacement for pavement deicing containing urea. The EPA’s 2000 report on airplane deicing found that replacement of urea - based deicers with acetate based deicers successfu lly decreased environmental problems from airport runoff. Response: EPA agrees with the commenter. SUPPORT_BAN - Support ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1201.1 - 2 Boeing strongly recommends airports cease airside use of urea - based products completely and immediately. Response: EPA agrees with the commenter. SUPPORT_BAN - Support ammonia ban Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1222.1 - 10 EPA’s proposal to limit the use of urea - based ADF would result in a positive step toward protecting these water bodies from ammonia pollution. Limiting urea - based deicers would also further protect drinking water sources, particularly as spikes in ammonia concentrations at drinki ng water intakes during winter weather events also increase chlorine demand. Response: EPA agrees with the commenter. SUPPORT_COD - Support COD as regulated pollutant Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1235 - 3 EPA has correctly discounted the use of BOD as a performance measurement in the proposed airports ELGs and has instead set COD standards for the discharge from on - site airport deicing treatment facilities.57 8 Response: EPA agrees with the commenter. SUPP ORT_REG - Support Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1174 - 1 Airport Deicing regulations are slammin. Keep it up. Response: No response necessary. SUPPORT_REG - Support Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EP A - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1185 - 1 I am in direct support of your proposed rule. I work for a Regulatory Oversight group in a major corporation and realize the importance of protecting our environment. Though most people, do not think of the importance of protecting our waters in the United States, it is critical. Stormwater runoff, especially from an airport can be damaging when entering our environment. Ensuring, Best Management Practices, (BMPS), will protect as best. If this rule is passed, it will ensure our airports, the importance of protecting our waters. Response: The final rule establishes controls for airfield deicing discharges at existing airports. However, for the reasons explained in the preamble, EPA determined that aircraft deicing discharge controls for existing airports are appropriately determined on a BPJ basis. EPA finds that controls on aircraft deicing wastewater are necessary, but there are many site - specific considerations at existing airports that need to be considered in determining the BAT requirements. SUPPO RT_REG - Support Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EP A - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1189.1 - 1 The feature of the regulation that excludes capture requirements from airports with low activity should be retained. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. The final rule retains a scope of only airports with 1,000 or more non - propeller departures, and the NSPS collection requirement includes both a departure threshold and a geographic - based criterion using climate zones, designed to eliminate airports that do not conduct significant deicing. SUPPORT_REG - Support Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1190.1 - 3 and 4 Whereas, Jet Enviro De - Icin g, LLC has proposed the construction of an infrared radiant heat de - icing facility at TSAIA which would reduce by 90% the de - icing fluids needed on aircraft; ... The Turnagain579 Community Council 1) submits this resolution to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in support of the proposed August 28, 2009 Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for Airport Deicing Category. Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their support. SUPPORT_REG - Support Proposed Rule – General comme nts Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1192.1 - 1 (Mitchell) The proposed rule to establish national effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) for airplane deicing fluid qualifies as good environmental policy that addresses an important water quality problem and provides ample evidence that the proposed solution is the best available. The rule includes thorough investigation of the costs and benefits of different regulations on airplane deicing fluid (ADF) chemicals and chooses the most appropriate requirements. Precautions are taken not to place excessive burden on indu stry while achieving a significant amount of pollution reduction. Response: See response to 1185 - 1 (above). SUPPORT_REG - Support Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1192.1 - 3 The need for permit regulation of airpla ne and pavement deicing fluids under the Clean Water Act has been recognized during the past few decades. The most voluminous chemicals used in ADF, glycols, have been the primary pollutant of concern in airplane deicing operations because of the high oxyg en demand they generate in water when decomposing and the high toxicity of ethylene glycol for mammals (Holzman 1997, USEPA 2000). The U.S. military has preferred use of propylene glycol instead of ethylene glycol because of the non - toxicity of propylene g lycol, but propylene glycol still creates a great biological oxygen demand (BOD) in water (Joint Service Pollution Prevention Opportunity Handbook), as the proposed rule acknowledges on page 44708. The proposed rule properly addresses the very great oxygen demand created by both glycol chemicals as necessitating regulation under the Clean Water Act, which requires NPDES permits for all point sources of water pollution (U.S.C. 33 Section 402). The rule appropriately recognizes airports as a point source of p ollution that is able to be regulated under the Clean Water Act sec. 402. Many state governments have already taken initiative in formulating storm water pollution prevention programs and NPDES permits for ADF discharge under the Clean Water Act (Flannery 1998, Holzman 1997, EPA 2000). In 2000, in response to the evident threats to water quality by airplane deicing operations, the EPA conducted an investigation and published a report on deicing operations and the technologies used in deicing and in ADF reco very. This report showed that, since 1990, many airports had successfully implemented ADF recovery technology to reduce ADF pollution; of airports with at least 10,000 annual operations, the average ADF recovery rate was 70% using best management practices . However, because the permits were implemented by the states based on local conditions, the regulations varied greatly from airport to airport. The proposed rule addresses the inconsistency of ADF regulation by proposing to establish national effluent lim itation guidelines for this pollution source. This rule would necessitate consistent standards of collecting ADF, treating wastewater, and discontinuing use of urea - based pavement deiciers for all facilities regulated. States would be able to formulate mo re stringent limitation guidelines if appropriate to protect water quality, according to the “water quality variances” explained on page 44712 of the rule. Other aspects of the proposed rule also demonstrate good policy formation based on available evidenc e. The cost - benefit analyses in this rule580 demonstrate thorough consideration of the possible options for regulation and good judgement in the choice for the proposed regulation. Table VIII - 6 in the proposed rule demonstrates that the technology chosen as B AT achieves the lowest cost per lb of pollutant abated besides Option 1, which would require a too small a reduction in pollution. The cost - benefit analyses in the rule acknowledge the excessive cost of installing a centralized deicing pad for facilities t hat use less than 460,000 gallons of deicing fluid. Response: See response to 1185 - 1 (above). SUPPORT_REG - Support Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1192.1 - 5 The new source performance standards also shows good j udgement in identifying newly - constructed runways as new sources to be regulated by stricter standards, since construction of a new runway would provide the opportunity for installation of superior ADF collection technology. Response: For the reasons explained in the preamble, EPA has deleted the new runway provision in the final rule NSPS. See the response to comment 1189.1, #7 (Airport Assn. of ND) [code NSPS_OPPOSE] SUPPORT_REG - Support Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 200 4 - 0038 - 1192.1 - 7 I support the policy proposed by this rule as a good and well - supported use of existing legislation to reduce water pollution. Response: See response to 1185 - 1 (above). SUPPORT_REG - Support Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1194 - 1 (NYSDEC) The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) supports the development and issuance of effluent limitation guidelines for the airport deicing category. The promulgation of technology ba sed standards for this industry will require several of the state’s largest primary commercial airports to focus efforts on reducing the direct discharge of airport deicing fluids to waters of the state. This is anticipated to have a positive impact on the water quality of the receiving waters. EPA’s continued efforts toward finalizing these regulations are encouraged. Response: See response to 1185 - 1 (above). NYSDEC is authorized by EPA to regulate dischargers under the NPDES program, and it can incl ude BPJ limitations in airport discharge permits. Information in the Technical Development Document and the rulemaking record is available as a resource to help with BPJ determinations.581 SUPPORT_REG - Support Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1196 - 1 (anon.) I support stricter, stronger rules against water pollution. I am not happy that the Clean Water act was weakened in recent years and I want to see it strengthened. Please make the rules for clean water more strict. Response: See response to 1185 - 1 (above). SUPPORT_REG - Support Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1197 - excerpts 1 and 2 I completely support the EPA’s proposed technology based effluent limitation guidelines and new source performance standards (NSPS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA); however wish to add a suggestion of technology that will better limit the amount of ADF that is applied in the first place. The EPA’s proposed rule is critical, especially in light of the fact that the Federal Aviation Administration currently does not require airlines to use a specific technology when deicing aircraft. Thus, it is fair to say that every airline has its own fixed based operators (FBO) and deicing protocols which use a variety of different chemicals used to deice the aircraft and runways

– each potentially c ontaminating our water sources. Rather than focus all of the energy in technologies that help collect the ADF, such as Glycol Recovery Vehicles (trucks that vacuum t he stormwater), Plug and Pump (blocking storm drains to collect the trapped ADF), and Centralized Deicing Pads, the EPA should rather look at technologies that better help airports answer the most important question: Is now a necessary time to “deice”? The re are current technologies, such as Road Weather Information Systems (RWIS), that include pavement sensors which are embedded into the roads to relay critical information (temperature, whether the surface is wet, etc.) which help individuals decide when i t is an appropriate time to deice. These systems have saved cities thousands of dollars, by limiting the application of road salt that is necessary. I strongly believe that the EPA should look at requiring such RWIS at airports. Response: See response to 1185 - 1 (above). EPA agrees that complying pollution prevention technology, in the form of limiting the amount of ADF applied, achieves the greatest reductions. Use of such technology must to be done so that the critical safety gained by applying ADF i s achieved. See response to comment EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1216.1, excerpt number 4. (P2_Credit) With respect to Road Weather Information Systems (RWIS) in particular, EPA does not have enough information in the record about this technology to make any dec isions about it. SUPPORT_REG - Support Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1200.1 - 1 (Kaufman) I write in support of the EPA’s proposed technology - based effluent limitation guidelines and new source performance standard s under the Clear Water Act for effluent discharge from airport deicing operations. As a citizen, I am alarmed by the potential environmental effects of aircraft deicing fluid (ADF) identified by EPA documentation, including “elevated levels of glycol, sal inity, ammonia, and other pollutants; depressed oxygen levels; foaming; noxious odors; and discoloration.”2 Also of concern are consequences582 such as “reduced organism abundance; fish kills; modified community composition; and reduced species,” and impacts on human drinking water sources.3 Although the proposed regulations will impose a cost on airports, airlines, and ultimately airline passengers such as me, the negative externality of environmental damage created by ADF should be a cost borne by those who create it. Rivers, streams, and other bodies of water provide important beneficial uses, including consumptive water use, recreational uses (such as fishing), aesthetic value, and environmental and ecological benefits. As a policy matter, therefore, the EP A’s proposed rules requiring airports under NPDES permits to collect and treat certain percentages of ADF prior to discharge is a laudable step to protect the various beneficial uses of water. Response: See response to 1185 - 1 (above). SUPPORT_REG - Support Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1204.1 - 1 I believe that the proposal has many good suggestions to protect the surrounding communities, but these suggestions must be enforced. Deicing of aircraft is an importan t practice to save lives, but we also need to protect lives by ensuring the safe disposal of deicing chemicals. Response: EPA agrees with the commenter. SUPPORT_REG - Support Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1205 - 1 I Support the proposed rules for Effluent limitation guidelines and new source performance standards for Airport Deicing because as a member of the USAF, I've seen how deicing of aircraft can occur making the aircraft safe for flight while minimizing the flow residual deicing flu i d into our public water systems. Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and thanks them for their support. SUPPORT_REG - Support Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1222.1 - 1 AMWA and AWWA support a rulemaking for airport deicing effluent guidelines. Preventing pollution at the source is a hallmark of EPA’s programs, and part of the fifth goal of the agency’s strategic plan (environmental compliance and stewardship). Mitigating ADF pollution, by collecting it at the airports is also key to following EPA’s watershed approach for protecting our source water resources. Our associations offer the following comments and suggestions on EPA’s proposed rule. Response: EPA agrees with the commenter.583 SUPPORT_REG - Support Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: E PA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1223.1 - 1 We support the creation of technology - based effluent standards limiting the release of compounds that would create harmful Biochemical Ox ygen Demand (BOD) and whose decay introduce ammonia and other Nitrogen compounds into our waterways. Airports have access to a variety of treatment technologies to address the increased Chemical Oxygen Demand (used as a surrogate for Biochemical Oxygen Dem and) load imposed by glycol - based deicers, and affordable alternatives to urea based deicers. We urge continued research of additives used in Airplane Deicing Fluid (ADF), such as alkylphenols and their ethoxylates, so that their potential toxicity can be definitively ascertained. We hope that in the future, the rule could be amended to require the capture and treatment of all ADF effluent. The authors and signatories of this letter are united in supporting tough and effective limitations on the discharge o f airplane and runway deicing materials into the waters of the United States. All of our groups are responsible for highly urban water bodies that endure an outsized impact from human generated pollution. Lack of dissolved oxygen is a constant strain on th e wildlife communities that struggle to survive in highly contaminated waters. The most common deicing chemical, propylene glycol, exerts an oxygen demand many thousands of times that of raw sewage, and its usage tends to be highly concentrated into period ic acute events that we expect cause severe stress to already taxed organisms. As you note in your environmental report, deicing a single jet can generate a BOD5 load greater than that of one million gallons of raw sewage. The Clean Water Act sets as its g oal the elimination of all point source pollution by 1985. In pursuit of that goal, technology based effluent limits were supposed to gradually reduce the amount of pollution discharged into water. To our mind, state and federal regulators have not taken t his goal with even a modicum of seriousness. Newark Airport, for example, has no effluent limit for its glycol discharges. La Guardia and John F. Kennedy airports don’t even have an individual Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit. Our understandin g is that no airport in the region is required to conduct water quality monitoring more than biennially. Under the existing paradigm, major polluters of area waters are allowed to discharge any quantity of glycol they choose, to make no effort of any kind to reduce discharges, and to monitor the impact of their negligence only every two years. The impact of glycol pollution is likely to be intense, periodic and short - lived, i.e. not suitable for rare, random testing protocols. We therefore welcome any attem pt by the EPA to improve on the status quo, though we caution that even under the proposed rulemaking we expect the control of glycol discharges to be legally, technically and spiritually out of line with the Clean Water Act. We will monitor the situation and retain our legal options. Response: See response to 1185 - 1 (above). While the NPDES permit requirements for La Guardia and JFK Airports in the absence of this rule are outside the scope of this rulemaking, we note that both of these airports have individual NPDES permits. The permit issued to JFK in 2007 contains significant new requirements, including preparation of a water quality modeling study and a best management practices report. The permit also requires expanded effluent monitoring, involv ing coverage of additional outfalls, pollutants and toxicity testing. SUPPORT_REG - Support Proposed Rule – General comments Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1246 - 1 The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality supports the development and issuanc e of effluent limitation guidelines for the airport deicing category. The proposed regulations will have a positive impact on the water quality of the receiving waters.584 Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and thanks them for their support. TASTE/ODOR - Taste and odor treatment standards Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1199 - 3 The need to address taste and odor impacts that glycol from airport deicing causes to downstream drinking water suppliers. The selection of pollutants of concern, discussed in Section 7.2 of the Technical Development Document, needs to consider whether the pollutant causes impacts to secondary drinking water standards, which if not addressed through proper control at the pollutant source, can lead to customer compla ints and erode public confidence in the quality of the water supply. Response: EPA is aware that glycol - based deicing fluids at airports are being discharged to receiving waters during deicing events and may impact water quality downstream. The deicing effluent limitations guideline program is required by the Clean Water Act to develop technology - based controls that will be used at airports across the country. These controls will reduce discharges using the best available technology, economically achiev able (BAT). However, in some situations this technology may not eliminate all potential impacts on water quality, especially if there are unique site - specific characteristics. Where this is the case at a specific location, such as glycol impacting odor and taste at a drinking water utility intake structure that is downstream of an airport, on a specific river, these types of impacts can be controlled through water quality - based effluent limitations that can be imposed in the individual airport's NPDES permi t, the same permit that implements the effluent limitations guidelines technology - based limits. TASTE/ODOR - Taste and odor treatment standards Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1222.1 - 8 EPA should address the impacts that ADF pollution causes to the taste and odor of downstream drinking water suppliers. AMWA and AWWA recommend that EPA update the rule’s supporting documents (Technical Development Document and Environmental Impact and Benefit Assessment) to address the impacts of ADF to downstream drin king water utilities. For example, the analysis of reduced deicing discharges to public water supply systems, discussed in Section 4.4.3 of the Environmental Impact and Benefit Assessment should address drinking water impacts (taste and odor). The brief an alysis of benefits provides only a high - level summary of benefits to groundwater source protection. The analysis should include detailed information on surface water supply systems downstream of airport outfall(s), such the information provided to the agen cy by Fairfax Water. Response: EPA is aware that glycol - based deicing fluids at airports are being discharged to receiving waters during deicing events and may impact water quality downstream. The deicing effluent limitations guideline program is requi red by the Clean Water Act to develop technology - based controls that will be used at airports across the country. These controls will reduce glycol discharges significantly using the best available technology, economically achievable (BAT). However, in som e situations this technology may not eliminate all potential impacts on water quality, especially if there are unique site - specific characteristics such as drinking water intakes for a public water utility downstream of an airport. In such site - specific ca ses, national technology - based limitations are not the most appropriate approach for controlling these types of impacts, since such impacts do not occur at all airports, and may only occur at a585 very few. EPA has documentation indicating this type of impact occurring at only one known airport to date. Where these types of impacts do occur, they can be adequately addressed in the individual NPDES permit of the airport on a case - by - case basis. TECH_FORCING - ELG mandates technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 15 (EQ Co.) Rejected Collection Method: Page 44692, Section VII, (E), (1) describes the reason the EPA rejected Option 2, "Plug and Pump" technology as being the high operating and maintenance costs compared to the other opt ions ("GRV" and "Deicing Pads"). As presented earlier, the "Plug and Pump" system can be (and is) performed without the use of "GRV" and even intermediate transport equipment. Even when a vacuum truck is required (like the unit pictured below), the initial capital cost of these units is one - third to one - half that of the "GRV" presented in the TDD, provides twice the on - board storage capacity, and has a lower per hour operational cost.6 Considering the potential savings in initial capital and operational cos ts, it would seem appropriate to allow airports to employ this style of "Plug and Pump" control technology instead of the "GRV" - only mandated system of the proposed regulations. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF col lection or treatment for existing airports, and the final rule for new sources is not based on the use of Plug and Pump or GRVs. Therefore, this comment is not applicable to the final regulation. TECH_FORCING - ELG mandates technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 23 (EQ Co.) Choices: Page 44701, Section VII, (L) (3)

– "Alternate Means of Demonstrating Compliance". As we have tried to reveal, it is preferable not to limit an airport choices or mandate a single collection method, recog nizing that unique conditions (weather, traffic, layout, etc.) would require the application of various collection technologies to ensure ADF capture efficiencies. If the future reveals that all or most airports have to apply for a "waiver" or receive appr oval for an alternate collection scheme, is it safe to assume that the prescribed methods are too limiting and inflexible? Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment for existing airports. Therefore , this comment is not applicable to the final regulation with respect to existing sources. For new sources, EPA has included flexibility within the rule for the permittee to employ alternative collection schemes to the one identified as BADCT for new sour ces. See the final rule preamble, section X.C.2, "Demonstrating Compliance with the NSPS Collection Requirement." TECH_FORCING - ELG mandates technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 - 49 The following statement (TDD page 9 - 1) appears to be in complete contradiction to the requirements of the Proposed Rule. "The Agency does not require sites to implement these specific activities and technologies to comply with the proposed rulemaking; sites can implement any technology (or completely elimin ate their discharge through contract hauling or recycling) as long as they achieve the proposed586 effluent limitations." The technologies listed after this paragraph includes "GRV", "Deice Pads", and Anaerobic Fluidized Bed (AFB) Biological Treatment, all as pects mandated by the proposed rule, unless incurring the additional effort and cost of obtaining approval to use alternative methods. Was it the intent of this statement to re - enforce the alternative methods option offered by the proposed rule? Response: See response to 1214.1 - 23 (EQ Co.) (above) TECH_FORCING - ELG mandates technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1215.1 - 1 (Inland) The proposed rule could be easily misinterpreted as requiring adoption of the model collection and onsite treatment technologies. a) It should be more explicitly stated that the proposed rule does not require adoption of the model technologies, but rather that regulated airports are allowed to implement any technology of their choosing that delivers equivalent performance. The metrics for establishing equivalent performance should be clearly specified in this statement. b) It should also be more explicitly stated that the model onsite treatment technology only applies to discharges to surface waters under an NPDES permit and does not apply to discharges to wastewater treatment plants. c) The way that the proposed rule is currently written, it appears to excl usively endorse one proprietary technology, and may discourage innovative companies that currently provide treatment technologies from offering superior alternative solutions. Response: (a) For new sources, the final rule does adequately make clear that alternative collection technologies may be employed rather than the technology identified as BADCT (centralized deicing pads). This comment is not applicable to the final rule for existing sources, which does not establish uniform requirements for collec tion of ADF. (b) It is clear under the Clean Water Act and the final regulation that these effluent guidelines and standards apply to direct discharges only, not discharges to POTWs. (c) The final rule includes flexibility to employ alternative technolog ies and to get credit for pollution prevention. See response to Document Control Number: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1214.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 23. Also, see response to EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1248 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 (code REG_LANG) TECH_FORCING - ELG mandates technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 4 (ATA) It is no answer for EPA to assert that it is not purporting to require airports or airlines to adopt a particular technological solution. Even if airports and airlines are free to adopt any practice that achieves the standard, this does not obviate the fact that the standard itself is based on an operations - dependent technology. In any event, as is more than apparent in this proceeding, the ELG effectively mandates technology solut ions that necessarily and improperly implicate operations when applied. For example, EPA “estimates that [CDPs] allow airports to capture about 60 %of available ADF”18 and on the basis of that model technology, establishes a 60% collection efficiency stand ard for Tier One airports.19 The Record identifies no other collection technology capable of achieving this standard20 and EPA has confirmed that the 60% collection standard is based on use of central deicing pads (“CDPs”) for all aircraft deicing operatio ns.21 Thus, EPA dictates, if not directly then (just as impermissibly) indirectly, aircraft operations, airport capacity and the role the airport may play in the NAS during winter operations. This it cannot do and

– given the nature of the derivation of te chnology - based standards, we do not see587 how it is possible to derive such standards without impermissibly intruding into areas under FAA’s exclusive jurisdiction. Response: See response to 1215.1 - 1 (Inland) (above) With respect to new sources, unde r the CWA, EPA identifies the best available demonstrated control technology and the performance that it can achieve. Contrary to the statement made by the commenter that EPA had not identified other technologies and is therefore mandating a specific tech nology, the CWA does not require that EPA identify other ways to achieve the rule requirements. This leaves it open to each specific facility to determine the best approach and allows for development of new technologies and approaches. While the CWA does not require EPA to demonstrate additional technologies that can achieve the standards, the TDD identifies pollution prevention approaches and information in EPA's record suggests that some new airports may be able to meet the collection requirement with l ess extensive treatment than the technology basis. Also see responses to Comment Code L_CONTRARY. TECH_FORCING - ELG mandates technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1226.1 - 164 (ATA) EPA Impermissibly Mandates Technologies. The Propose Rule impermissibly mandates the use of specific collection technologies, both by making the use of CDPs for 100% of departures at Tier One airports the only means of compliance and by authorizing permit writers to dictate collection technologies, the form by which a permittee may demonstrate compliance with applicable collection standards, and the availability of credit for pollution prevention practices. It also fails to establish whether use of urea is ever possible. Rather, it takes credit for elimination of 100% of the ammonia attributable to urea use, suggesting that product substitution

– the proposed BAT for pavement deicers, is in fact a mandated technology because the compliance alternative of tre ating for Ammonia - N is cost - prohibitive. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. EPA determined that none of the ADF collection technologies considered for the final rule re presents the best available technology for the entire category. See section V.B.4 of the preamble. Comments on the proposed requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports are not applicable to the final regulation. The final regulatio ns for new sources do set ADF collection requirements that are based on EPA’s identification of CDPs as BADCT. However, the rule does not mandate the use of CDPs, but only sets a collection requirement based on their use. New source permittees may use al ternative collection technologies, where the permittee can demonstrate that the alternative technology will achieve the percent collection requirement in the permit. With respect to the comment on urea and mandating a technology (product substitution), ag ain, the CWA requires that EPA that is capable of achieving the requirement, but does not require a discharger to use the technology basis. Rather, the CWA requires that the discharger meet the requirement. In the case of airfield deicing discharges, EPA has made such a demonstration and identified product substitution as the technology basis for the requirements. See Section V.B.1 of the preamble. In evaluating the cost associated with this technology basis, EPA costed facilities to substitute urea bas ed pavement deicing588 with the most widely used one in the industry, potassium acetate, but dischargers may substitute with other non - urea containing deicers. EPA also included a compliance alternative under which a discharger may continue to use urea - ba sed deicers and meet numerical discharge limitations. While EPA has not identified a cost effective manner in which an airport may deice an entire airport with a urea based product and meet the limit, the rule nevertheless allows an airport to use a urea based deicer if they meet an associated ammonia limit for any airfield deicing wastewater discharges. EPA anticipates that some airports may deice limited areas in which airfield deicing - contaminated stormwater is collected and made available for treatment . Therefore, the rules leave it open to each facility to determine the best approach for meeting the requirements and also allows for development of new technologies and approaches. TECH_FORCING - ELG mandates technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1227.1 - 20 (Massport/Boston) Finally, even with a $54 million AFB system, Boston - Logan would still have to send a percentage of its deicing runoff off - site for treatment because of limitations on the concentrations of BOD that the system could tre at.166 [FOOTNOTE: 166 See GS&P Report at pp. 4, 6. GS&P’s analysis of the simulated daily flows and BOD loads from CDM’s modeling of the Expanded Pad Juliet collection scenario show that during the design season, over 1.2 million gallons of runoff (6% of t he total annual runoff, containing 56% of the BOD load for the design season) would have concentrations greater than 75,000 mg/L BOD. BOD concentrations in AFB system influent above 75,000 mg/L BOD causes operational concerns relating to the removal of sol ids that are produced as a by - product of the AFB treatment process. As a result, only about 94% of the deicing runoff volume, and only about 44% of the annual BOD load, from the conceptual Expanded Pad Juliet could be feasibly treated by an AFB system. See id. at pp. 3, 4.] One theoretical option for satisfying the Proposed Rule’s treatment requirements would be slow metering of the concentrated runoff collected from Expanded Juliet Pad to a publicly owned treatment works (“POTW”) such as the MWRA’s Deer Is land Treatment Plant. However, a POTW may be prohibited from accepting runoff with such high concentrations of BOD. Moreover, if the runoff were allowed to be metered to the POTW, additional storage would be required to hold that runoff before discharge, a nd the size of that storage would be dependent on the POTW’s load limits. This additional storage and discharge to the POTW would also incur additional capital and operational costs and require additional land space.167 [FOOTNOTE: 167 See id. at p. 6. GS&P was not tasked with providing preliminary opinions of cost for the three - pad scenario. It nonetheless has noted that this scenario would likely result in higher volumes of deicing runoff being collected as well as a higher volume of runoff and COD or BOD load at concentrations within the acceptable COD or BOD concentration range for on - site AFB treatment. According to GS&P, it is therefore highly likely that the costs for on - site AFB treatment for the three - pad scenario would be at least equal to and possi bly even higher than the costs for the Expanded Juliet Pad alone. See id. at p. 7.] With regard to the end - of - pipe interception collection scenario, CDM estimated that on a design season basis, end - of - pipe interception would generate about 391.6 million ga llons of deicing runoff, with BOD concentrations ranging from zero to 80,000 mg/L BOD. GS&P determined that as a result, under this scenario, Boston - Logan would need an AFB capable of treating approximately 38,000 pounds of BOD per day. According to GS&P, while an AFB system could be designed to treat this daily load rate, the high volumes of runoff in combination with the very low predicted BOD concentrations occurring often during the design season would present a different but nonetheless significant set of operational problems than treatment of the very high BO concentrations predicted in the Expanded Juliet Pad scenario.168 [FOOTNOTE: 168 See id. As discussed above, because AFB systems operate at a nearly constant BOD loading rate, the influent flow rat e is dependent on the influent concentration. As the influent concentration decreases, the influent flow rate must increase to feed the589 same daily load to the system. At low concentrations (less than 1,200 mg/L BOD) the necessary influent flow rate to the AFB treatment system becomes too high to support efficient operation of the system. Also, the amount of methane generated by the anaerobic treatment would not be sufficient to supply the heat requirement to sustain the temperature required. See id.] Moreov er, building such a system at Boston - Logan would cost about $61 million (again, not including such key components as storage facilities and piping) and would require approximately six acres of land at Boston - Logan.169 [FOOTNOTE: 169 See id. at pp. 6 - 7.] A s noted above, it would be infeasible to such a treatment system at Boston - Logan because of the Airport’s extreme space constraints. Finally, GS&P’s analysis of CDM’s simulated flows and loads for the end - of - pipe collection scenario shows that this $61 mil lion AFB system could treat approximately 75% of the total annual BOD load but only about 15% of the annual deicing runoff volume. The remaining 85% of runoff volume (approximately 331 million gallons per season) would have concentrations of less than 1,20 0 mg/L BOD, meaning that it could not feasibly be treated by an AFB system. As a result, as under the Expanded Juliet Pad runoff treatment scenario, an additional treatment option would be necessary. One theoretical option would be to discharge the low con centration runoff to a POTW such as the MWRA’s Deer Island facility. However, this option would likely have significant cost implications. Moreover, high - volume deicing runoff events at Boston - Logan typically coincide with high precipitation events, and a POTW may not accept high volumes from Boston - Logan during and shortly after precipitation events, when the POTW’s own system may already be near capacity. In this event, Boston - Logan would be required to hold large volumes of runoff and meter it to the PO TW, which would necessitate even greater storage and additional costs.170 [FOOTNOTE: 170 See id. at pp. 5, 6 - 7.] Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. Therefore, this comm ent is not applicable to the final regulation. TECH_FORCING - ELG mandates technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1231.1 - 25 (AAAE) The 20 percent capture requirement may only be met through operation of GRVs and the 60 percent capture requirement may only be met with construction of a centralized deicing pad with the mandated dimensions of the rule. See proposed 40 C.F.R. §§ 449.20(b)(1)(i) and (ii). AAAE urges that alternative methods that may be a better fit for various airports will be taken into consideration as long as collection is achieved. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. Therefore, this comment is not applicable to the final regulation. TECH_FORCING - ELG mandates technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 1 (PA NY&NJ) The Port Authority recognizes that EPA’s intent in promulgating ELGs is to identify model technologies but not to mandate any particular technology for any f acility to achieve compliance. While EPA claims that they are not mandating any particular technology through this rulemaking,8 EPA has not identified any alternative technology that can achieve the proposed 60 percent collection standard. Hence, with rega rd to collection, EPA has de facto mandated construction of deicing pads. In addition, while there may be alternative treatment technologies other than AFBR systems, for space - constrained airports in590 particular, the type of system may not determine feasibi lity because there is no room for a new treatment system of any kind. In addition, the massive costs of any treatment system grossly exceed the environmental benefits that could be achieved from implementing such a system, in particular for the Port Author ity’s airports that discharge to marine environments. Response: See response to 1226.1 - 164 (ATA) (above) TECH_FORCING - ELG mandates technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 6 (PA NY&NJ) The Proposed Rule specifies one technology (GRV or centralized deicing pad) as BAT for each of the collection thresholds, and the first means of compliance requires that all deicing activities occur in conjunction with that technology.13 (The Proposed Rule TDD states that airports are free to choos e whatever technology they wish. However, the requirements have been established such that deicing pads are the only means available to comply with the 60 percent collection requirement. In addition, permit writer discretion can mandate this technology reg ardless of any considered airport strategy.) A deicing pad system is a technology that requires the use of land in an FAA - regulated airside movement area. As such, all of the factors and characteristics related to land use and airfield operation at an airp ort come into play: land availability, FAA - mandated design standards, winter operational procedures, and effects on aircraft delay, among others. As discussed in our later comments, the EPA does not consider these other factors when determining the feasibi lity of deicing pads at our airports. In addition, the Proposed Rule considers the effluent from deicing operations to be a point source that must comply with numeric effluent limitations at the end of the pipe.14 AFBR are identified as the model BAT treat ment systems for on - site treatment. Using data from one completed AFBR system, EPA has concluded that AFBR can be sized to fit the treatment requirements of all other appropriate airports. This is a gross over - simplification and indicates a fundamental la ck of understanding on the part of the EPA of how airports operate. Response: The final rule does not require existing airports to collect ADF nor does it establish aircraft deicing discharge requirements. Therefore, this comment is not applicable to t he final regulation. For new airports, EPA is retaining the use of CDP technology as the basis for the NSPS collection requirement. In the case of a new airport, centralized deicing pads would be a component of the design of the airport layout. As such, the airside design will account for land requirements associated with deicing pads, will include design for the number and placement of pads to maximize ease of deicing with minimal interference to other operations for the anticipated winter departur es, and will ensure that FAA deicing pad design criteria are met. EPA has based this assessment on the success of the deicing pad design and operation used at Denver International Airport which incorporated placement of deicing pads at the end of runways to minimize hold over times and maximize the airport's ability to collect deicing stormwater for recycle and recovery. See DCN AD01260 for a discussion of EPA's evaluation of deicing pads for new sources. The same rationale applies to AFBR at new airport s. TECH_FORCING - ELG mandates technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 46 (PA NY&NJ)591 The Proposed Rule would require that all aircraft deicing take place on a centralized pad, with the exception of deicing for safe taxiing.95 This requi rement would have major implications for the size, number, cost, and feasibility of deicing pads at our airports. Deicing operations do not occur only during severe winter conditions. Less severe winter conditions could require deicing, and whenever temper atures are cold enough to allow ice to form on aircraft wings, dry - weather deicing may be conducted. Based on Port Authority data collected from the airlines at JFK during the 2008 - 2009 winter season, deicing fluid was used on 69 days. Deicing may be condu cted for as few as one aircraft on a particular day, and may require relatively small amounts of deicing fluid (50 gallons in some [but not all] cases). On the other hand, deicing on a particular day may require thousands of gallons of fluid use, even when a winter storm is not occurring.96 Given that winter storm conditions are not present, the number of peak - hour departures on these less severe weather or dry deicing days could be at or close to the federally imposed slot limit. Although not all of these departing aircraft typically would be deiced, the proposed ELG requirement that all deicing occur on a centralized pad theoretically could require a pad sized to accommodate the maximum number of slot - allocated departures. As noted previously, the deicing pads would need to be sized to accommodate two times (or more) the number of aircraft per hour than would use the pads during a winter storm. This potential requirement is impractical at best, and as demonstrated above, would be infeasible to implement. In addition, runway use during less severe weather and dry deicing days can be different than runway use during a winter storm. As noted previously, Runway 4 (4L at JFK and EWR, and 4 at LGA) is the primary departure runway at our airports during a winter st orm. Annual runway use data indicate that all eight runway ends (4L/22R, 4R/22L, 13L/31R, 13R/31L) at JFK, all four runway ends (4/22, 12/31) at LGA, and all six runway ends (4L/22R, 4R/22L, and 11/29) at EWR are used for departures during the winter month s. As deicing could be employed for aircraft using any one of these runway ends, deicing pads would need to be located to serve all of the runway ends. As a result, there would need to be at least four deicing pad locations at JFK, three at LGA, and three locations at EWR. A review of airline data on deicing fluid use at JFK indicates the disproportionate burden that these requirements would impose relative to their benefit. The data indicate that, during the 2008 - 2009 season, deicing fluid was used on 69 d ays between October 28 and March 27 (about 46 percent of the days in the season). On 34 of those days (almost half), use of Type I fluid totaled less than 1,000 gallons each day, and there was no use of Type IV fluid. On another 14 days, use of Type I flui d was less than 10,000 gallons each day, and use of Type IV fluid was less than 2,000 gallons. There were 12 days for which fluid use was clearly higher than on the other days (i.e., Type I use could total 100,000 gallons or more, and Type IV use could tot al 20,000 gallons or more). Fluid use was somewhere in between these totals on the other nine days.97 Although the data are for just one season (and deicing can fluctuate dramatically from season to season), it seems reasonable to conclude that the major u se of deicing fluid is confined to a relatively small number of days. The Proposed Rule’s requirement that pads be used for all deicing, including deicing on days of relatively minor fluid use, means that pads would be have to be constructed to accommodate relatively small amounts of deicing fluid, at great expense to the Port Authority and the airlines. A related concern is that it is difficult to design centralized deicing pads that anticipate future changes in the fleet mix at our airports. An example is the proposed trading of airline slot positions between Washington Reagan National Airport and LGA. Under the agreement, US Airways would give 125 slot pairs at LGA to Delta Airlines. In each slot for which US Airways uses turboprop aircraft, Delta would u se jet aircraft.98 This change in airline operations would result in a shift in the average fleet mix at LGA toward larger aircraft, with a corresponding change in the mix of aircraft using deicing pads (which would have been designed for the fleet mix tha t existed at the time they were constructed). Similarly, in 2008 there were 95 departures at JFK by the Airbus 380 (an ADG VI aircraft), all conducted by one airline. It is expected that there will be a larger percentage of ADG VI aircraft serving JFK in t he future, but the airport has no control over the types of aircraft used by airlines. The number of Group VI aircraft serving JFK has a direct bearing on the size and design of centralized deicing pads at that airport. The proposed requirement that the de icing pads accommodate all deicing means that the pads would need to be designed for a worst - case fleet mix, thus likely resulting in larger and more costly pads than actually592 would need to be built. Nowhere in the Proposed Rule have these critical issues been addressed or even noted by EPA. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for ADF collection or treatment at existing airports. Therefore, this comment is not applicable to the final regulation. Also see DCN AD01260 for EPA 's consideration of deicing pads as the technology basis for NSPS. During the new airport planning stage, the airport sponsor should design its aircraft deicing discharge control system to operate with some degree of flexibility, including, for example, t he ability to handle operations of both large and small aircraft. Denver Airport, the only new primary airport to open within the past 25 years, designed its system with the capacity to incorporate additional deicing pad treatment at a later time. A new airport should incorporate similar considerations with respect to deicing pads. TECH_FORCING - ELG mandates technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1232.1 - 80 (PA NY&NJ) Although the Proposed Rule appears to allow the flexibility to implement an alternative collection technology, the TDD concludes that “centralized deicing pads” (though this term may not be understood correctly) are the only technology reviewed that would collect 60 percent of the available normalized ADF. The TDD concludes that GRVs alone would recover 20 percent, and plug and pump in coordination with GRV, 40 percent. Thus, there are no other technologies specified by EPA that would meet the 60 percent co llection requirement. Contrary to past ELG rulemakings and, arguably, EPA’s mandates under CWA Section 304(b), the Agency is essentially mandating a particular technology. The Port Authority has not identified any other technologies available that collect 60 percent of available normalized ADF. EPA has not identified or analyzed any other potential options. A thorough understanding of the alternatives is necessary before educated decisions may be made to implement requirements with respect to a particular t echnology, particularly when the decision - making authority

– the state permitting authorities

– typically defer to EPA and EPA guidance when implementing ELGs. Without a thorough review of alternatives, the analysis upon which collection technology requir ements are decided is flawed. Response: See response to 1226.1 - 164 (ATA) (above) TECH_FORCING - ELG mandates technology Comment Info: EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - 1239.1 - 3 (PA DEP) Page 44680, Table IV - I. Technology based effluent limitations should not be dependent upon the amount of ADF that is used by the industrial sector. The Agency should promulgate a regulation that is based upon collection and treatment of ADF, regardless of the amount of ADF used or the number of annual departures. The techn ology based requirements and the associated collection percentages are independent from the amount of ADF that is used. There is no correlation between the amount of ADF that is used and the amount of ADF that can be collected by GRVs, plug and pump, and d edicated collection pads. The amount collected is based on the types of infrastructure and/or equipment used for collection. This is clearly identified by the Agency in the percentages associated with the three collection technologies and associated percen t collections for GRVs (20% collection), plug and pump (40% collection), and/or centralized deicing pads (60% collection). The Agency therefore should not promulgate a regulation593 based upon the amount of ADF used by the industry. The Agency should promulga te a technology based effluent limitations based upon selected treatment technology. Response: The final rule does not establish uniform requirements for collection or treatment of ADF for existing sources. For new sources, the final rule does not make the applicability of the new source performance standards dependent on the amount of ADF used. Therefore, this comment is not applicable to the final regulation.594 B. List of Commenters The complete docket number for each comment letter consists of " EPA - HQ - OW - 2004 - 0038 - " and the number shown below Name 1168 Organization Jean Public 1169 Jim Spensley South Metro Airport Action Council (M i nneapolis, MN) 1170 John Naylor Chattanooga Airport 1185 David DeLeon 1187 Asciatu Whiteside Dallas - Fort Worth Airport 1188 James M. Foster Gulfport - Biloxi Airport 1189 Timothy J. Thorsen Airport Association of North Dakota 1190 Breck Tostevin Turnagain Community Council (Anchorage, AK) 1192 David Mitchell 1193 T. Refsland 1194 Cheryle Webber New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation 1196 Anonymous 1197 D. Lew 1198 James E. Byrum Michigan Agri - Business Association 1199 Charles M. Murray Fairfax County Water Authority (Virginia) 1200 Bryce Kaufman 1201 Terry Mutter Boeing Company 1202 David Speirs Radiant Aviation Services 1203 Louis E. Miller Florida Airports Council 1204 John Grimes 1205 David G. DeGennaro 1206 Jennifer Dodd Tennessee Dept. of Environment and Conservation 1207 William Creal Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment 1208 Michael J. McCartney Philadelphia Airport 1209 Kathleen M. Zander South Dakota Agri - Business Association 1211 William C. Herz Fertilizer Institute 1212 John Parrott Anchorage Airport 1213 Janell Barilleaux Denver Airport 1214 Michael Toth - Purcell EQ Resource Recovery 1215 Roger Langille Inland Technologies. 1216 Roy Fuhrmann Minneapolis - St Paul Airport 1217 James F. Devine US Geological Survey 1218 Douglas E. Lavin International Air Transport Association 1219 Michael France National Air Transportation Association 1220 Robert Kostinec Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1221 Amy Fuller Lyman Alaska Air Group 1222 Diane VanDe Hei , et al Assn. of Metropolitan Water Agencies/American Water Works Assn. 1223 Maya K. van Rossum, et al NY/NJ Baykeeper; Hackensack Riverkeeper; Delaware Riverkeeper 1225 Bill Ballard Alaska Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities 1226 Timothy Pohle Air Transport Association 1227 Ira M. Wallach, et al Massachusetts Port Authority 1229 Vincent Malavé NuSil595 1230 William Ashton Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation 1231 Leslie Riegle American Association of Airport Executives 1232 Susan M. Baer Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 1233 Marianne Csaky Continental Airlines 1234 Richard D. Kessel Air Line Pilots Association 1235 Shawn H. Veltman Olver 1236 Daniel D. Tisoncik United Airlines 1237 Alex Meyers Octagon Process 1239 Kareen Milcic, et al Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection 1240 Gregory Principato Airports Council International - North America 1241 Rick McQueen Akron - Canton Airport 1242 Alton B. Lanier Memphis Airport 1244 Patty M. Nellis Salt Lake City Airport 1246 Fred K. Cunningham Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality 1247 Donald R. Chapman Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Airport 1248 Aaron J. Frame City of Chicago