Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490-0084
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2017-10-26T04:00Z

MEMORANDUM

To:		Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2016 - 0490

From: 	Karen Marsh, U.S. EPA, OAQPS, Sector Policies and Programs Division

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:	State Pretreatment Coordinators Meeting -- Proposed NESHAP for POTW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 	February 8 and 13, 2017 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Representatives of EPA/OAQPS/SPPD met with members of the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) over the course of two meetings to discuss the proposed revisions to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). The purpose of the meetings was for EPA to listen to stakeholder concerns and answer limited questions about the proposed rule. These meetings took place during the public comment period for the proposed rule (81 FR 95352, December 27, 2016) and stakeholders were encouraged to submit written comments on the proposed rule. 

The attendees listed in Attachment A were on at least one of the two calls. 

Stakeholder Topics/Questions/Concerns:

Applicability was the main discussion item on the February 8 call. 

Stakeholders questioned the inclusion of emissions from the collection system in the major source determination. EPA noted that the original definition of the source category included emissions from collection systems and that this proposal clarified this definition.

Stakeholders indicated that approximately 1,500 POTW could potentially be subject to the standards as Group 2 POTW if collection system emissions are included in the major source determination. 

Stakeholders stated that the burden on POTW to continuously demonstrate they are not a major source is onerous. They questioned how often a POTW would need to update their emission estimates (i.e., each time a new influent is introduced, monthly, or annually). 

One stakeholder asked if the expectation was that a POTW would sample their influent to the treatment plant and also the influent to the primary clarifier in order to perform a mass balance. They also asked for additional guidance on how a POTW would determine emissions.

One stakeholder indicated that the assumption that EPA made regarding emissions from secondary treatment was flawed. The stakeholder stated that secondary treatment emissions, especially from aerated biological treatment could be as high as primary treatment emissions because the HAP would strip out of the water faster than the bugs could consume them.

Several stakeholders indicated that POTW are not currently required to sample for HAP. This additional burden was not taken into account in the proposal and additional guidance would be needed from EPA regarding how to handle non-detects in the samples. They raised the concern that treating a non-detect as equal to (1/2) the detection limit would generate large artificial emissions due to the large quantity of wastewater treated.

One stakeholder indicated that using pretreatment to limit specific pollutants from the collection system could create an issue downstream when all water streams mix at the influent to the treatment plant.

One stakeholder stated that POTW do regularly monitor explosivity limits. They asked whether this information would be helpful for determining emissions. EPA recommended that they include any known data points that are regularly collected by POTW in their comments.

One stakeholder asked if there are certain categories that require some level of treatment that would help them in identifying potential Group 1 POTW. EPA pointed them to the pretreatment and categorical limits information located in the docket for the rule.

One stakeholder asked what would happen if a POTW became subject because of a malfunction at an upstream industrial user. Would "once in always in" apply in this instance?

One stakeholder suggested that an approach to have POTW first monitor for HAP before taking pretreatment steps would be more efficient and less burdensome.

Following are discussion items from the February 13 call. 

Stakeholders questioned applicability in 63.1580. EPA noted that an industrial (Group 1) POTW is taking responsibility for another NESHAP, so the Group 1 POTW is responsible for this POTW NESHAP as well as the other NESHAP. The POTW is essentially used as an agent to comply with the other NESHAP.

Stakeholders asked if there was a list of industries or SICs that more likely would be subject to a MACT standard and send their wastewater to a POTW. EPA noted that it has not prepared such a list, but will consider this question. EPA did not look back at other NESHAP that had industrial wastewater requirements when it was determining Group 1 standards.

Stakeholders stated that the rule (63.1580(c)) is not clear about which POTW are new. The stakeholders questioned whether all POTW with a design capacity of 5 million gallons of wastewater per day would have to install covers. One stakeholder responded that rule applicability is greater than 5 million gallons per day (MGD). The only sources that must install covers are new sources that select to install covers vs comply with the applicable HAP fraction. Note that "new sources" includes both new and reconstructed sources. EPA is not aware of any new sources.

Stakeholders questioned whether any recordkeeping or reporting already exists demonstrating major/area source status. The EPA responded that it had identified two Group 1 major sources: one in VA and one in TX. 

One stakeholder claimed that every POTW will have some type of industrial component (i.e., receives wastewater from industrial sources). Under the proposed rule, they must determine the HAP fraction by testing or by "crunching a bunch of numbers." EPA noted: They would have to be a major source before they would be subject to the rule and must do HAP fraction testing. 

One stakeholder pointed out that Part 63 defines a major source. Once a POTW determines whether it is major based on the part 63 definition, then that applies to all of Part 63? The EPA confirmed.

Stakeholders raised the question of how a source determines whether it is a major source.
The EPA stated that the POTW may have to use a mass balance equation. NPDES permits would apply. NPDES permits are required to be renewed every 5 years. In the original rulemaking, EPA proposed a methodology to determine major source, but did not include that methodology in the final rule. EPA noted that some in some cases, the methodology for determining major source applicability may be up to the delegated authority. The EPA also asked what methods POTW have been using to determine major source applicability under the current rule. Two stakeholders responded that they did not know. 

One stakeholder expressed concern about testing and having to prove that they were not affected by the rule versus affected by the rule. 

One stakeholder pointed to the permitting requirements in 40 CFR parts 70 and 71. It appears that every 5 years you must certify that you are not required to have an air permit. Maybe you would need to do a mass balance calculation to determine whether your source is major during that 5-year review. 

Stakeholders questioned the wording in 63.1580(a)(1) and (2). Why doesn't paragraph state whether it applies to Group 1 or Group 2 or both? The EPA stated that it is implied that all Group 2 POTW are subject if they are major sources. 

One stakeholder pointed out that language related to the new source dates could imply all sources are new and now subject to either the HAP fraction or cover and control requirements for new sources.

One stakeholder sought clarification of the 12-month compliance date, especially for Group 2. The stakeholder expressed that 12 months may not be enough time to comply. 

The EPA raised the question of whether the POTW should set local limits (i.e., organics, not metals). Stakeholders noted that pretreatment limits were generally for human safety and maintaining biological treatment conditions, rather than controlling pollutants. 

Stakeholders expressed concern about monitoring and the corresponding expense. 

Stakeholders raised questions about the environmental effects of POTWsand questioned whether these sources are worth the attention. The EPA stated that the risk assessment covers risk less than 1-in-1 million. 

One stakeholder pointed to specific text in the preamble (81 FR 95373):
"While our decisions on risk acceptability and ample margin of safety are supported even in the absence of these standards for collection systems, if we finalize the proposed requirements for these emission sources they will further strengthen our conclusions that risk is acceptable and the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health." The stakeholder was concerned that the proposed standards would not provide any additional environmental benefit while resulting in an expense for the industry to demonstrate emissions are still low and risk is still acceptable.

One stakeholder questioned whether there could be a regular 10 MGD POTW that is doing its own air work, but now the SUM of the industrial wastewaters they are receiving adds up to major source applicability. They were concerned that inclusion of the collection sewers would now bring this POTW into the regulation where it had previously not been subject.

                                 Attachment A

U.S. EPA
Karen Marsh 
Rebecca Christopher
Jan Pickrel
Kathryn Kazior

ERG
Joe Fanjoy

ACWA
Mark Patrick McGuire

Tetratech
Charles Durham

Region 1 (R1)
Alexis Rastorguyeff  -  NH

R2
Valentin Kouame  -  NJ

R3
Deborah Dibiasi  -  VA

R4
Deb Gore - NC
Yatasha Moore, Laura Rognstad - TN
Abigail Rains  -  KY
Greg Brown, Blair Boleson  -  FL

R5
Jodi Peace  -  MI
Jaramie Logelin, Justin Barek - MN
Sara Harvey, Bob Ostendorf, Phoebe Low  -  OH

R6
Todd Franklin - LA
Rebecca Villalba, David James  -  TX
Roshini Nambiar  -  OK
Adam Yates - AR
Sara Holcomb, Jennifer Foote  -  NM

R7
Todd Blanc  -  MO
Nebraska

R8
Jen Robinson  -  UT
Tina McFarlin, Earl Berge  -  SD
Lisa Knerr  -  CO

R9

R10
David Knight  -  WA
Mary Klingman, Tiffany Larsson  -  AK
Etsegenet Bilete  -  OR