MEMORANDUM

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:	NACWA Meeting -- Proposed NESHAP for POTW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 	January 11 and February 16, 2017 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Representatives of EPA/OAQPS/SPPD met with members of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) 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 walk attendees through the proposed rule, 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. In additional to the attendees listed in Attachment A, David Cozzie and Karen Marsh were in attendance from EPA. 

Stakeholder Topics/Questions/Concerns:

One stakeholder asked if the industrial and commercial facilities must have HAP in their wastewater in order for the POTW to potentially be subject to the rule. EPA indicated that HAP emissions were one of the applicability criteria, therefore, if a wastewater stream did not contain HAP, it would not contribute to the potential emissions at the POTW when determining whether the POTW is a major source.

Stakeholders requested a variation of the reporting timeline and indicated that the first quarter of the year is heavily focused on reporting for several different programs, including NPDES, TRI, and emission inventories. They requested that annual reporting be due outside of the first quarter of the calendar year to ease burden.

One stakeholder indicated they are subject to the rule because they are collocated with engines that are a major source of HAP. They asked if they took a limit on those engines to become a synthetic area source, would they no longer be subject to the POTW NESHAP. EPA stated they would look into this issue.

One stakeholder indicated they had not identified a lab that could address all 187 HAP.

Several stakeholders stated they are working to collect data to submit to EPA but were concerned about having that data available within the comment period. EPA indicated they could discuss extending the comment period if requested.
Stakeholders asked how they would develop a process to determine which HAP they needed to be concerned about entering their POTW and becoming an air emission source. One commenter stated they utilize a combination of ToxChem+ and source testing to determine emissions and identify the HAP of concern. Another commenter stated they use TRI screening to determine which pollutants they should add to their monitoring program.

One stakeholder asked how many POTW that have design capacities between 5 and 20 million gallons per day (MGD) have data on HAP other than their priority pollutant list from their NPDES program. 

On February 16, 2017, EPA spoke with Cynthia Finley of NACWA to discuss additional comments and questions. Further EPA discussed the approval of a comment extension for 30 days (ending March 29, 2017). Ms. Finely identified key items that would be provided in the formal comments from NACWA as outline below:

Collection system have not previously been looked at for emissions and were not included originally in the major source determination calculations. There are several questions over what part of the collection system is owned by the POTW as satellite systems often discharge to larger utilities. 

The treatment plant has always been considered as the source of emissions when determining if the POTW is a major source. 

There are some helpful clarifications in the rule as proposed.

There is no objection to moving pretreatment out of the applicability criteria.

The proposed applicability should not trigger major source exceedances for any existing POTW not already subject to the rule. There is a concern that inclusion of the collection system emissions would pull in additional POTW. 

The HAP fraction as proposed seems reasonable but there is at least 1 POTW that is not sure if they could continuously meet this limit. There is lack of clarity over EPA's goal in setting the HAP fraction limit and the cost for monthly monitoring was not accounted for in the proposed cost estimates. 

EPA requested that the items outlined be included in the formal comment submission to the docket.

