2 (“[T]he RIA for this action analyzes the benefits associated with the projected emissions reductions under this proposal to inform the EPA and the public about these projected impacts.”) In reality, the RIA exposes the invalidity of the Agency’s unsupportable speculation regarding health benefits. [...] Specifically, EPA’s use of the BPT method for the LMWC sector was devoid of any of the sector-specific information that proper use of the BPT method requires. [...] EPA has developed tools and models for life cycle analyses that would enable the agency to more comprehensively consider the secondary impacts of the proposed rule, including the risk of facility closure and diversion of MSW to landfills.27 But it has failed to apply these tools and best practices to the present rulemaking. [...] Together, we must listen to science and meet the moment.”43 While much has been said throughout this rulemaking of the environmental justice impacts of the WTE industry, EPA has once again ignored the other side of the ledger, and the well-documented disparity in climate impacts among socio-economic and ethnic groups. [...] 22 FG: 102498371.5 While we understand that the quality of EPA’s estimates depends on the quality of the data available to the Agency, EPA’s refusal to give the communities we represent additional comment time for purposes of supplying the Agency with better cost and feasibility data is not defensible given Agency representatives’ acknowledgement of the need for accurate and reliable data.
Authors
- Pages
- 88
- Published in
- United States of America
Table of Contents
- 24 03 25 LMWC Comments Letter 1
- TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
- I. The Proposed Rule’s Computation of MACT Floors Is Logically and Legally Flawed 4
- A. Statutory and Legal Context 4
- B. Internal Inconsistencies Betray the Unreliability of The Proposed Rule’s Estimates of 1990 Emissions 5
- C. The MACT Floor Calculations Incorrectly Assume Emission Reductions are Attributable Solely to Technology and Fail to Control for Other Relevant Variables 7
- D. The MACT Floor Calculations Fail to Account or Control for Variance in Waste Stream Composition Across Facilities and Over Time 9
- E. The MACT Floor Calculations Ignore the Probable Impact of SSM Exceptions on Reported Emissions, Resulting in Unrealistic Expectations of Achievable Emissions Limits 10
- II. The Proposed Rule’s Flawed Projection of Health Benefits Is Compounded By EPA’s Disregard for the Clean Air Act’s Requirement for Residual Risk Analysis 11
- A. EPA’s Projection of Health Benefits Is Deeply Flawed Speculation 11
- B. EPA Has Disregarded the CAA’s Mandate for Residual Risk Analysis 13
- III. The Proposed Rule’s Projections of Benefits, Disbenefits and Implementation Costs Are Significantly Flawed 16
- A. The Proposed Rule Unreasonably Ignores the Social Costs and Disbenefits of Making Climate-Friendly WTE Technology Cost-Prohibitive 17
- B. The Proposed Rule Makes Unrealistic Assumptions About Retrofit Costs 22
- C. The Proposed Rule Fails to Account for Practices Driving Lower Emissions at Top Performing Facilities, and the Associated Costs of those Practices 23
- IV. Other Unjustified Aspects of EPA’s Proposed Rule 26
- A. The Current LMWC Regulations’ Percent Reduction Compliance Alternative Is Sound and Should Not Be Changed 26
- B. EPA’s Proposed Elimination of Start-Up and Shutdown Compliance Exceptions Is Arbitrary 27
- C. EPA’s Proposed NOx Limit Is Seriously Flawed and Exposes the Arbitrariness Evident in Much of the LMWC Proposal 29
- V. Additional Subjects for Which EPA Requests Comments 31
- A. EPA’s Proposed Use of a Thirty-Day Hourly Rolling Average Is Amply Justified 31
- B. Compliance Dates 32
- C. Voluntary Consensus Standards 32
- Conclusion 32
- APPENDIX 34
- ATTACHMENT 1 35
- ATTACHMENT 2 45
- ATTACHMENT 3 78
- ATTACHMENT 4 85
- ATTACHMENT 5 87
