[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29168-29205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10633]
[[Page 29167]]
Vol. 77
Wednesday,
No. 95
May 16, 2012
Part VII
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 9 and 449
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards
for the Airport Deicing Category; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 29168]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 449
[EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0038. FRL-9667-6]
RIN 2040-AE69
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating technology-based effluent limitations
guidelines (ELGs) and new source performance standards (NSPS) under the
Clean Water Act (CWA) for discharges from airport deicing operations.
The requirements generally apply to wastewater associated with the
deicing of airfield pavement at primary airports. The rule requires all
such airports to comply with requirements based on substitution of less
toxic pavement deicers that do not contain urea. The rule also
establishes NSPS for wastewater discharges associated with aircraft
deicing for a subset of new airports. These airports must also meet
requirements based on collection of deicing fluid and treatment of the
collected fluid. The ELGs and NSPS will be incorporated into National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by the
permitting authority. EPA expects compliance with this regulation to
reduce the discharge of deicing-related pollutants by 16 million pounds
per year. EPA estimates the annual cost of the rule at $3.5 million.
DATES: This final rule is effective on June 15, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0038. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through the docket Web site or in hard copy at the Office of Water
Docket, EPA West Building Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone
number for the Office of Water Docket is 202-566-1752.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Eric
Strassler, Engineering and Analysis Division, telephone: 202-566-1026;
email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities regulated by this action may include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North American
Example of Industry
Category regulated entity Classification
System code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................ Primary airports.. 481, 4881
Airlines.......... 4811
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities that are likely to be regulated
by this action. Other types of entities that do not meet the above
criteria could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility is
regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria listed in Sec. 449.1 and the definitions in
Sec. 449.2 of the rule and detailed further in Section V of this
preamble. If you still have questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult one of the persons listed
for technical information in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
Supporting Documentation
Today's final rule is supported by a number of documents,
including:
Technical Development Document for Final Effluent
Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
(TDD), Document No. EPA-821-R-12-005.
Economic Analysis for Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines
and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (EA), Document No. EPA-
821-R-12-004.
Environmental Impact and Benefit Assessment for Final
Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing
Category (EIB), Document No. EPA-821-R-12-003.
These documents are available in the public record for this rule and on
EPA's Web site at http://epa.gov/guide/airport.
Overview
The preamble describes the terms, acronyms, and abbreviations used
in this notice; the background documents that support the regulations;
the legal authority of these rules; a summary of the final rule;
background information; and the technical and economic methodologies
used by the Agency to develop these regulations.
Table of Contents
I. Legal Authority
II. Purpose and Summary of the Final Rule
III. Background
A. Clean Water Act
B. NPDES Permits
1. General Permits
2. Individual Permits
C. Effluent Guidelines and Standards Program
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
D. Proposed Rule
1. ADF Collection
2. Numeric Limit for Collected ADF
3. Airfield Pavement Deicers
4. Other Technology Basis Considered
IV. Scope and Applicability of Final Rule
A. Subcategorization
B. Industry Description
C. Wastewater Sources and Wastewater Characteristics
1. Aircraft Deicing
2. Airfield Pavement Deicing
D. Control and Treatment Technologies for the Aviation Industry
1. ADF Collection Technologies
2. ADF-Contaminated Wastewater Treatment Technologies
3. Pollution Prevention Technologies
4. Airfield Pavement Deicing Control Technologies
E. Regulated Pollutants
V. Final Regulation
A. BPT and BCT
B. BAT
1. Airfield Deicing
[[Page 29169]]
2. Aircraft Deicing
3. Options Considered for Today's Final Rule
4. BAT Options Selection
C. NSPS
1. New Source Definition
2. NSPS Applicability
3. NSPS Option Selection
D. PSES and PSNS
VI. Technology Costs and Pollutant Reductions
A. Compliance Costs
1. Overview
2. Approach for Estimating Airfield Pavement Deicing Costs
3. Approach for Developing Aircraft Deicing Costs
4. Calculation of National Costs
B. Approach to Estimating Pollutant Reductions
1. Overview
2. Sources and Use of Available Data
C. Approach to Determining Long-Term Averages, Variability
Factors, and Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards
1. Criteria Used To Select Data as the Basis of the Limitations
2. Data Used as Basis of the Effluent Limitations
3. Statistical Percentile Basis for Limitations
4. Rationale for Establishing Limitation on Weekly Averages
Instead of Monthly Averages for COD in Effluent Discharges
5. Rationale for Promulgating a Limitation Only for Daily
Discharges of Ammonia in Effluent Discharges
6. Calculation of Limitations for COD and Ammonia
7. Derivation of Long-Term Average for COD and Ammonia: Target
Level for Treatment
8. Engineering Review of Effluent Limitations
VII. Economic Analysis
A. Introduction
B. Annualized Compliance Cost Estimates
C. Economic Impact Methodologies
1. Cost Annualization
2. Airport Impact Methodology
3. Co-Permittee Airline Impact Methodology
D. Results of Impact Analysis
1. Results of Airport Impact Analysis
2. Results of Co-Permittee Airline Impact Analysis
3. Economic Achievability
E. Economic Impacts for New Sources
F. Cost and Pollutant Reduction Comparison
G. Small Business Analysis
VIII. Environmental Assessment
A. Environmental Impacts
B. Environmental Benefits
IX. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
A. Energy Requirements
B. Air Emissions
C. Solid Waste Generation
X. Regulatory Implementation
A. Relation of ELGs and Standards to NPDES Permits
B. Effective Date
C. Compliance With the NSPS Requirement
1. Applicability
2. Demonstrating Compliance With the NSPS Collection Requirement
3. P2 Approaches
D. Alternative Compliance Option for Pavement Deicers Containing
Urea
E. COD Effluent Monitoring for New Source Direct Dischargers
F. Best Management Practices
G. Upset and Bypass Provisions
H. Variances and Modifications
1. Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF) Variance
2. Economic Variances
3. Water Quality Variances
I. Information Resources
XI. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews
A. EO 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and EO 13563:
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. EO 13132: Federalism
F. EO 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. EO 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. EO 13211: Energy Effects
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. EO 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
Appendix A to the Preamble: Abbreviations and Definitions Used in
This Document
I. Legal Authority
EPA is promulgating this regulation under the authorities of
sections 101, 301, 304, 306, 308, 402, and 501 of the CWA, 33 United
States Code (U.S.C.) 1251, 1311, 1314, 1316, 1318, 1342, and 1361 and
pursuant to the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 13101 et
seq.
II. Purpose and Summary of the Final Rule
Commercial airports and air carriers conduct deicing operations as
required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Airport
discharges from deicing operations may affect water quality in
surrounding communities, including reductions in dissolved oxygen, fish
kills, reduced organism abundance and species diversity, contamination
of drinking water sources (both surface and groundwater), creation of
noxious odors and discolored water in residential areas and parkland,
and other effects.
Today, EPA is promulgating effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs)
and new source performance standards (NSPS) for the Airport Deicing
Point Source Category. The regulations address control of the
wastewater discharges from deicing operations based on product
substitution, wastewater collection practices used by airports, and
treatment practices for the collected wastewater. New source airports
within the scope of this rule are required to collect spent aircraft
deicing fluid (ADF) and meet numerical discharge limits. Those airports
and certain existing airports performing airfield pavement deicing are
to use non-urea-containing deicers, or alternatively, meet a numeric
effluent limitation for ammonia. The requirements are implemented in
CWA discharge permits.
The rule requirements and the technologies that serve as the basis
for the ELGs and standards are explained in Sections IV, V, and VI of
this preamble.
III. Background
A. Clean Water Act
Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, also known as the CWA, to ``restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.'' (33 U.S.C.
1251(a)). The CWA establishes a comprehensive program for protecting
our nation's waters. Among its core provisions, the CWA prohibits the
discharge of pollutants from a point source to waters of the United
States, except as authorized under the CWA. Under section 402 of the
CWA, EPA and delegated state permitting authorities authorize
discharges by a NPDES permit. The CWA also authorizes EPA to establish
national technology-based effluent limitation guidelines and standards
(effluent guidelines or ELGs) for discharges from different categories
of point sources, such as industrial, commercial, and public sources.
In addition, the CWA authorizes EPA to promulgate nationally
applicable pretreatment standards that restrict pollutant discharges
from facilities that discharge wastewater indirectly through sewers
flowing to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), as outlined in
section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c). EPA establishes
national pretreatment standards for those pollutants in wastewater from
indirect dischargers that may pass through, interfere with, or are
otherwise incompatible with POTW operations. Generally, pretreatment
standards are designed to ensure that wastewaters from direct and
indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of
treatment. In addition, POTWs are required to implement local treatment
limits applicable to their industrial
[[Page 29170]]
indirect dischargers to satisfy any local requirements. See 40 CFR
403.5.
Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in NPDES
permits. Indirect dischargers, who discharge through POTWs, must comply
with pretreatment standards. Technology-based effluent limitations in
NPDES permits are derived from effluent limitations guidelines (CWA
sections 301 and 304, 33 U.S.C. 1311 and 1314) and new source
performance standards (section 306) promulgated by EPA, or based on
best professional judgment where EPA has not promulgated an applicable
effluent guideline or new source performance standard (CWA section
402(a)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1342(a)(1)(B)). Additional limitations based on
water quality standards (CWA section 301(b)(1)(C), 33 U.S.C.
1311(b)(1)(C)) are also required to be included in the permit in
certain circumstances. The ELGs are established by regulation for
categories of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of
control that can be achieved using various levels of pollution control
technology.
EPA promulgates national ELGs and standards of performance for
major industrial categories for three classes of pollutants: (1)
Conventional pollutants (i.e., total suspended solids, oil and grease,
BOD5, fecal coliform, and pH), as outlined in section
304(a)(4) and 40 CFR 401.16; (2) toxic pollutants (e.g., toxic metals
such as chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc; toxic organic pollutants such
as benzene, benzo-a-pyrene, phenol, and naphthalene), as outlined in
section 307(a) of the Act, 40 CFR 401.15 and 40 CFR part 423 appendix
A; and (3) non-conventional pollutants, pollutants that are neither
conventional nor toxic (e.g., ammonia-N, formaldehyde, and phosphorus).
B. NPDES Permits
Section 402 of the CWA requires permits for point source discharges
of pollutants to waters of the United States. In most states, the
permits are issued by a state agency that has been authorized by EPA.
Currently, 46 states and one U.S. territory are authorized to issue
NPDES permits. In the other states and territories, EPA issues the
permits.
Section 402(p) of the Act, added by the Water Quality Act of 1987
(Pub. L. 100-4, February 4, 1987), requires stormwater dischargers
``associated with industrial activity'' to be covered under an NPDES
permit. In its initial stormwater permit regulations, called the
``Phase I'' stormwater regulations (55 FR 47990, November 16, 1990),
EPA designated air transportation facilities, including both airlines
and airports, that have vehicle maintenance shops (including vehicle
rehabilitation, mechanical repairs, painting, fueling, and
lubrication), equipment cleaning operations, or airport deicing
operations as subject to NPDES stormwater permitting requirements. See
40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(viii).
Airport stormwater discharges may be controlled under a general
NPDES permit, which covers multiple facilities with similar types of
operations and/or wastestreams, or by an individual permit. An airport
may have additional NPDES permits for non-stormwater discharges, such
as from equipment repair and maintenance facilities. The following
discussion pertains only to airport stormwater permits.
1. General Permits
Currently, most airport deicing discharges are covered by a general
permit issued by either EPA or an NPDES-authorized state agency. In
most areas where EPA is the permit authority, the Multi-Sector General
Permit (MSGP) covers airport deicing discharges (73 FR 56572, September
29, 2008). Many NPDES-authorized state agencies have issued general
permits in their respective jurisdictions with requirements similar to
the MSGP. An airport seeking coverage under a general permit submits a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to the permit authority rather than a detailed
permit application. By submitting an NOI, the permittee is agreeing to
comply with the conditions in the final general permit.
For airports, the major requirements of the current MSGP, include
the following:
Develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan, including
a drainage area site map, documentation of measures used for management
of deicing contaminated stormwater, an evaluation of runway and
aircraft deicing operations, and implementation of a program to control
or manage deicing contaminated stormwater, including consideration of
various listed control practices.
Implement deicing source reduction measures, including
minimizing or eliminating the use of urea and glycol-containing deicing
chemicals; minimizing contamination of deicing contaminated stormwater
from runway and aircraft deicing operations; evaluating whether over-
application of deicing chemicals occurs; and consider use of various
listed source control measures.
For airports using more than 100,000 gallons of glycol-
based deicing chemicals and/or 100 tons or more of urea containing
deicers annually, monitor discharges quarterly for the first four
quarters of the permit cycle, for the following pollutants: biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD 5), chemical oxygen demand (COD),
ammonia, and pH.
If the average of the four monitoring values for any
parameter exceeds its benchmark, implement additional control measures
where feasible, and continue monitoring.
Conduct an annual site inspection during the deicing
season, and during periods of actual deicing operations if possible, as
well as routine facility inspections at least monthly during the
deicing season.
EPA expects to modify the MSGP when the next permit is issued, to
conform it to today's final Airport Deicing rule.
2. Individual Permits
Some EPA and state NPDES-permitting authorities have required
certain airports to obtain individual permits. In these situations, an
airport must submit a detailed application and the permit authority
develops specific requirements for the facility.
Some individual permits contain specialized requirements for
monitoring and/or best management practices (BMPs). Some of these
permits also contain numeric water quality-based effluent limitations.
Information on water quality-based permitting is available on EPA's Web
site at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/generalissues/watertechnology.cfm.
C. Effluent Guidelines and Standards Program
Effluent guidelines and NSPS are technology-based regulations that
are developed by EPA for a category of dischargers. These regulations
are based on the performance of control and treatment technologies. The
legislative history of CWA section 304(b), which is the heart of the
effluent guidelines program, describes the need to press toward higher
levels of control through research and development of new processes,
modifications, replacement of obsolete plans and processes, and other
improvements in technology, taking into account the cost of controls.
Congress has also stated that EPA need not consider water quality
impacts on individual water bodies as the guidelines are developed; see
Statement of Senator Muskie (October 4, 1972), reprinted in Legislative
History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, at 170.
(U.S. Senate, Committee on Public Works, Serial No. 93-1, January
1973.)
[[Page 29171]]
There are four types of standards applicable to direct dischargers
(dischargers to surface waters), and two standards applicable to
indirect dischargers (discharges to POTWs).
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT effluent limitations based on
the average of the best performances of facilities within the industry,
grouped to reflect various ages, sizes, processes, or other common
characteristics. EPA may promulgate BPT effluent limits for
conventional, toxic, and non-conventional pollutants. In specifying
BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first considers the cost of
achieving effluent reductions in relation to the effluent reduction
benefits. The Agency also considers the age of the equipment and
facilities, the processes employed, engineering aspects of the control
technologies, any required process changes, non-water quality
environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such other
factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA section
304(b)(1)(B). If, however, existing performance is uniformly
inadequate, EPA may establish limitations based on higher levels of
control than what is currently in place in an industrial category, when
based on an Agency determination that the technology is available in
another category or subcategory, and can be practically applied.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify additional
levels of effluent reduction for conventional pollutants associated
with BCT technology for discharges from existing industrial point
sources. In addition to other factors specified in section
304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA establish BCT limitations after
consideration of a two part ``cost-reasonableness'' test. EPA explained
its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51
FR 24974). Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional
pollutants: BOD 5 measured over five days, total suspended
solids, fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants defined by
the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator designated oil and
grease as an additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR
44501; 40 CFR 401.16).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
BAT represents the second level of stringency for controlling
direct discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants. In general,
BAT ELGs represent the best economically achievable performance of
facilities in the industrial subcategory or category. The factors
considered in assessing BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent
reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process
employed, potential process changes, and non-water quality
environmental impacts, including energy requirements and such other
factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. The Agency retains
considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded these
factors. Economic achievability is an additional statutory factor
considered in setting BAT. Generally, EPA determines economic
achievability on the basis of total costs to the industry and the
effect of compliance with BAT limitations on overall industry and
subcategory financial conditions. As with BPT, where existing
performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher level of
performance than is currently being achieved based on technology
transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT may be based
upon process changes or internal controls, even when these technologies
are not common industry practice.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the
best available demonstrated control technology (BADCT). Owners of new
facilities have the opportunity to install the best and most efficient
production processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a
result, NSPS should represent the most stringent controls attainable
through the application of the BADCT for all pollutants (that is,
conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In
establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost
of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality
environmental impacts and energy requirements.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
Section 307(b) calls for EPA to issue pretreatment standards for
discharges of pollutants to POTWs. PSES are designed to prevent the
discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are
otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs. Categorical
pretreatment standards are technology-based and are analogous to BPT
and BAT effluent limitation guidelines. See CWA sections 301((b)(1)(B)
and 301(b)(2)(A)), 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(B) and 1311(b)(2)(A). The
General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework for the
implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found at 40
CFR part 403. These regulations establish pretreatment standards that
apply to all non-domestic dischargers. See 52 FR 1586 (January14,
1987).
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
Section 307(c) of the Act calls for EPA to promulgate PSNS. Such
pretreatment standards must prevent the discharge of any pollutant into
a POTW that may interfere with, pass through, or may otherwise be
incompatible with the POTW. EPA promulgates PSNS based on best
available demonstrated technology for new sources. New indirect
dischargers have the opportunity to incorporate into their facilities
the best available demonstrated technologies. The Agency typically
considers the same factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in
promulgating NSPS.
D. Proposed Rule
EPA published a proposed rule for the Airport Deicing Category on
August 28, 2009 (74 FR 44676). The proposed rule covered primary
commercial airports that conduct deicing operations and have 1,000 or
more annual jet departures. An existing airport in the scope of the
proposal would have been required to certify that it uses airfield
pavement deicers that do not contain urea, or alternatively, meet an
effluent limitation for ammonia. Additionally, in-scope airports with
10,000 or more annual departures would have been required to:
Collect at least a specified proportion (either 20 or 60
percent, based on size) of available ADF after it is sprayed on
aircraft; and
Meet a specified numeric effluent limit for ADF wastewater
collected and discharged directly.
As proposed, all in-scope new source dischargers had the same
airfield pavement deicing requirements as existing sources and were
required to collect 60 percent of available ADF and meet the specified
numeric limit for direct discharges of the collected fluid. EPA
estimated that the proposed rule would apply to 218 existing airports;
110 airports for both the pavement deicer and ADF collection and
[[Page 29172]]
discharge requirements, and another 108 airports for the pavement
deicer requirement only. Of those 218 airports, the Agency estimated
that 148 airports were already in compliance with the proposed
requirements.
1. ADF Collection
The proposed rule would have required all existing primary airports
that have 10,000 or more annual departures to collect at least 20
percent of available ADF. The 20 percent collection requirement was
based on the estimated performance of glycol collection vehicles
(GCVs). Those primary airports that use 460,000 or more gallons of
normalized ADF annually, which make up a small subset of this group,
would have been required to collect at least 60 percent of all
available ADF. (As defined in proposed Sec. 449.2, normalized ADF is
ADF less any water added by the manufacturer or customer before ADF
application.) This collection requirement was based on the estimated
performance of centralized deicing pads (CDPs). In-scope primary
airports with less than 10,000 annual departures would not have been
required to meet the national ELG requirements to collect their
available deicing fluid or meet associated discharge limitations and
would have continued to be subject to case-by-case Best Professional
Judgment (BPJ) permitting requirements for ADF collection and
treatment.
2. Numeric Limit for Collected ADF
For airports discharging collected ADF directly to surface waters,
the proposal would have required these airports to meet numeric
effluent limitations for COD. The limits were based on anaerobic
fluidized bed (AFB) treatment technology.
3. Airfield Pavement Deicers
EPA proposed BAT for direct dischargers associated with airfield
pavement deicing based on product substitution. Specifically, EPA based
BAT on the substitution of pavement deicers containing urea with
alternative, less toxic products that are also effective and not
harmful to aircraft.
4. Other Technology Basis Considered
In the proposed rule, in addition to CDPs and GCVs, EPA described
plug-and-pump technology with GCVs as a possible BAT basis for an ADF
collection requirement, and calculated the cost of this technology.
This technology, when used in combination with GCVs, is estimated to
collect at least 40 percent of available ADF.
IV. Scope and Applicability of Final Rule
This final rule applies to primary airports. Existing airports with
greater than or equal to 1,000 annual departures by non propeller
driven aircraft must meet BAT requirements at Sec. 449.10, as
applicable.
A new airport with deicing discharges and located in specified
geographic locations (see section V.C.2), that is operating less than
1,000 non-propeller aircraft departures annually is not required to
meet the NSPS provisions in Sec. 449.11. However, if the number of
departures later increases above that threshold, then the substantive
requirements in Sec. 449.11 apply. This means that a new airport that
expects to eventually exceed the 1,000 departure threshold must plan to
install and operate facilities that will comply with the requirements
of that section once it reaches the threshold of 1,000 non-propeller
departures annually.
A. Subcategorization
EPA may divide a point source category into groupings called
``subcategories'' to provide a method for addressing variations among
products, processes, and other factors, which result in distinctly
different effluent characteristics. See Texas Oil & Gas Ass'n. v. US
EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 939-40 (5th Cir. 1998). Regulation of a category by
subcategories provides that each subcategory has a uniform set of
effluent limitations that takes into account technological
achievability and economic impacts unique to that subcategory. In some
cases, effluent limitations within a subcategory may be different based
on consideration of these same factors, which are identified in CWA
section 304(b)(2)(B). The CWA requires that EPA, in developing effluent
guidelines, consider a number of different factors, which are also
relevant for subcategorization. The CWA also authorizes EPA to take
into account other factors that the Agency deems appropriate.
In developing today's rule, EPA considered whether subcategorizing
the aviation industry was warranted. In addition to those factors
specified in the CWA, EPA evaluated a number of factors and potential
subcategorization approaches, including the presence of an onsite
glycol reclamation facility, amount of ADF applied, number of
departures, availability of land to install collection systems, and FAA
airport classifications. EPA concluded that establishing formal
subcategories is not necessary for the Airport Deicing category. EPA
structured the applicability and requirements of the final rule to
account for the relevant factors (e.g., amount of ADF applied) and has
established a set of requirements appropriate for the range of
situations that an airport may encounter during deicing operations.
B. Industry Description
The Airport and Airway Improvement Act (AAIA), 49 U.S.C. Chapter
471, defines airports by categories of airport activities, including
Commercial Service (Primary and Non-Primary), Cargo Service, and
Reliever. These categories are not mutually exclusive; an airport may
be classified in more than one of these categories. Another group of
generally smaller airports, not specifically defined by AAIA, is
commonly known as ``general aviation'' airports. EPA estimates that
there are approximately 500 commercial service airports.
Commercial service airports are publicly owned airports that have
at least 2,500 passenger boardings each calendar year and receive
scheduled passenger service. Passenger boardings refer to revenue
passenger boardings on an aircraft in service in air commerce, whether
or not in scheduled service. The definition also includes passengers
who continue on an aircraft in international flight that stops at an
airport in any of the 50 states for a non-traffic purpose, such as
refueling or aircraft maintenance rather than passenger activity.
Passenger boardings at airports that receive scheduled passenger
service are also referred to as ``enplanements.''
Primary commercial service airports (primary airports) have more
than 10,000 passenger boardings each year. Primary airports are further
subdivided into Large Hub, Medium Hub, Small Hub and Non-Hub
classifications, based on the percentage of total passenger boardings
within the United States in the most recent calendar year ending before
the start of the current fiscal year.
Early in the regulatory development process, EPA focused on deicing
activities at primary airports, particularly those with extensive non-
propeller traffic. Operators of general aviation aircraft, as well as
smaller commercial non-jet aircraft, typically suspend flights during
icing conditions, whereas commercial airlines operating at primary
airports are much more likely to deice their jets in order to meet
customer demands.
Based on the results of industry surveys that EPA conducted prior
to the proposed rule, the Agency estimated that 320 primary airports
conduct deicing operations. EPA reviewed the
[[Page 29173]]
relative sizes of various airports (based on annual departures), the
levels of deicing activity, traffic characteristics (i.e., passenger
versus cargo operations), the extent of pollution controls and
treatment in place, and the costs of various technologies for these
airports. EPA further classified airports based on the number of annual
non-propeller departures. EPA found that there were some primary
airports, typically smaller airports, with high percentages of
propeller aircraft, and therefore excluded airports with fewer than
1,000 annual non-propeller departures from the scope of the proposed
rule. These airports have a higher proportion of propeller-aircraft
flights, which are typically delayed or cancelled during icing
conditions (i.e., far less deicing takes place at these airports and
far less deicing fluid is used, than at airports serving more jets).
C. Wastewater Sources and Wastewater Characteristics
1. Aircraft Deicing
Airlines apply most ADF to aircraft through pressurized spraying
systems, mounted either on trucks that move around an aircraft, or on
large fixed boom devices located at a pad dedicated to deicing.
Most of the ADF sprayed is Type I fluid, which is designed for
minimal adhesion to aircraft surfaces. Consequently, the majority of
Type I ADF is available for discharge due to dripping, over-spraying,
tires rolling through or sprayed with fluid, and shearing during
takeoff. Once the ADF has reached the ground, it will then mix with
precipitation, as well as other chemicals found on airport surfaces;
these chemicals typically include aircraft fuel, lubricants and
solvents, and metals from aircraft, ground support and utility
vehicles. Water containing these substances enters an airport's storm
drain system. At many airports, the storm drains discharge directly to
U.S. waters with no treatment.
Type IV fluid, an anti-icing chemical, is designed to adhere to the
aircraft. Because of this adherence characteristic, EPA estimated that
the majority of Type IV fluid is not available for collection.
For the purposes of this rule, the pollutant loadings are discussed
in terms of applied ADF and how much of that ADF is expected to be
discharged. A more detailed discussion of loadings estimates is
presented in Section VI.B. Given the highly variable nature of storm
events, it is difficult to estimate flows or concentrations of ADF-
contaminated stormwater generated at an airport. Those factors are
greatly dependent on site-specific factors, such as the size of the
storm event associated with the discharge, drainage characteristics,
ADF collection systems (if present), and airport operations.
Additionally, due to the design of drainage systems at some airports,
discharges may occur well after a storm event has completed.
2. Airfield Pavement Deicing
Most solid airfield deicing chemical products are composed of an
active deicing ingredient (e.g., potassium acetate, sodium acetate) and
a small amount of additives (e.g., corrosion inhibitors). Liquid
airfield deicing chemical products are composed of an active ingredient
(e.g., potassium acetate, propylene glycol), water, and minimal
additives. The airfield deicing products that include salts (i.e.,
potassium acetate, sodium acetate, and sodium formate) will all ionize
in water, creating positive salt ions (K\+\, Na\+\), BOD5,
and COD load as the acetate or formate ion degrades into carbon dioxide
(CO2) and water. Pavement deicers containing urea will
degrade to ammonia, as well as generate BOD5 and COD load.
Most of EPA's deicing characterization data does not reflect
airfield pavement deicers. However, EPA collected samples from a few
locations at Detroit Metro Airport that contain airfield deicing
stormwater. Detroit Metro and Pittsburgh, both large hub airports,
provided sampling data associated with stormwater contaminated by
airfield pavement deicers. More information on these sampling
activities is provided in the TDD. As with the aircraft deicers, the
variability of storm events and drainage systems makes it difficult to
estimate flows or concentrations of pavement deicing waste streams
generated at an airport.
D. Control and Treatment Technologies for the Aviation Industry
The ADF application process has presented a challenge for those
airports attempting to manage their contaminated stormwater streams.
The process of applying ADF to aircraft through high pressure spraying,
combined with the 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.
EPA has identified several technologies that are available to
collect and manage portions of the ADF wastestream. Some of these
collection technologies are more effective than others. EPA has also
identified several pollution prevention (P2) approaches that may be
used to minimize the amount of ADF applied. However, no single
technology or P2 approach is capable of collecting or eliminating all
applied ADF, as a portion of the fluid is designed to adhere to the
aircraft until after takeoff, in order to ensure safe operations.
Furthermore, with few exceptions, tracking by aircraft tires, wind
dispersion, and dripping during taxiing and takeoff ensures that some
amount of sprayed ADF, even if performed in a contained area, will end
up in the drainage system of the airport. For these reasons, EPA
concludes that all airports that perform aircraft deicing operations
are direct dischargers. There are limited instances where an airport in
a warm climate that performs only defrosting and gets little to no
precipitation may, in fact, not discharge any deicing materials.
Once the available ADF wastestream is collected, it can be treated,
and this process is similar to many other industries that generate
wastewater. In a similar manner, airfield deicing has presented a
challenge for airports 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 economically achievable technologies for the collection of
pavement deicing stormwater. As a result, EPA also examined P2
technologies, which can reduce or eliminate the use of ADF chemicals
and urea containing deicers for pavement deicing in today's final rule.
The following section discusses the technologies EPA considered for
ADF collection and treatment and for addressing airfield deicing.
1. ADF Collection Technologies
a. GCV
A GCV is a truck that utilizes a vacuum mechanism to gather
stormwater contaminated with ADF, resulting from deicing operations.
GCVs are typically stationed near the ADF spraying trucks and are
deployed either during aircraft deicing activities or after the
aircraft deicing activity has been completed. The GCV then transports
the
[[Page 29174]]
ADF-contaminated stormwater to an onsite storage and/or equalization
facility, after which the material is either treated at the airport or
sent offsite for treatment. EPA estimates that GCVs typically collect
at least 20 percent of the available ADF when properly operated and
maintained.
b. Plug and Pump
The plug and pump collection system utilizes an airport's existing
stormwater collection system infrastructure to contain and collect ADF
contaminated stormwater. Plug and pump systems also commonly utilize
GCVs for ancillary ADF collection. Typical GCV deployment may include
collecting ADF that has been sprayed beyond the plug and pump
containment area or as an additional collection measure at the gate,
ramp, and/or apron area after deicing operations and active plug and
pump collection have ceased. The plug and pump system operates by
placing either temporary inflatable balloons or storm sewer shutoff
valves in the existing storm sewer system. During deicing events, the
balloons are inflated and storm sewer shutoff valves are closed,
trapping the ADF-contaminated stormwater in the collection system.
Vacuum trucks pump the trapped contaminated stormwater from the storm
sewer system and transport the liquid to onsite storage and/or
equalization. In addition, catch basin inserts can be placed into
manholes to collect ADF-contaminated stormwater.
c. CDPs
A CDP is a paved area on an airfield built specifically for
aircraft deicing operations. It is typically located adjacent to a gate
area, taxiway, or runway, and constructed with a drainage system
separate from the airport's main storm drain system. A CDP is usually
constructed of concrete with sealed joints to prevent the loss of
sprayed ADF through the joints. The pad's collection system is
typically connected to a wastewater storage facility, which then may
send the wastewater to an onsite or offsite treatment facility.
Some airports use GCVs in combination with CDPs to collect ADF that
lands outside the pad collection area in order to maximize collection
and containment of ADF-contaminated stormwater. Airports typically
locate the pads near the gate areas or at the threshold of a runway to
minimize delays in aircraft takeoff and to enhance the effectiveness of
the ADF applied by limiting time between application and takeoff.
CDPs reduce the volume of deicing wastewater by restricting deicing
to small areas, and managing the collected wastewater through a
dedicated drain system. EPA estimates that CDPs allow airports to
collect at least 60 percent of the available ADF.
d. Summary of ADF Collection Technology Usage
EPA estimates the number of airports that use each of the above
collection technologies in Table IV-1. Some airports use more than one
technology, and some of the airports in the estimate use the technology
for only a portion of their ADF-contaminated stormwater.
Table IV-1--Estimated Totals of ADF Collection Technologies Used by
Airports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Collection technology airports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glycol Collection Vehicle............................... 53
Plug and Pump........................................... 29
Centralized Deicing Pad................................. 66
------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Section 8.2 of the TDD for further explanation of EPA's estimates
of the ADF collection rates for the fluid collection technologies.
2. ADF-Contaminated Wastewater Treatment Technologies
In the proposed rule, EPA identified four technologies for treating
ADF-contaminated wastewater: AFB, Ultrafiltration/Reverse Osmosis,
Mechanical Vapor Recompression and Distillation, and Aerated Pond. The
Agency selected AFB for further consideration and rejected the other
technologies. See 74 FR 44687 and the TDD.
An AFB treatment system uses a vertical, cylindrical tank in which
the ADF-contaminated stormwater is pumped upwards through a bed of
granular activated carbon at a velocity sufficient to fluidize, or
suspend, the media. A thin film of microorganisms grows on and coats
each granular activated carbon particle, providing a vast surface area
for biological growth. These microorganisms provide treatment of the
ADF-contaminated stormwater. Byproducts from the AFB treatment system
include methane, CO2, and new biomass (animal material,
bacteria). The AFB treatment system includes storage as an initial step
to equalize flows and pollutant concentrations that feed into the
biological treatment unit.
Treating wastes using an anaerobic biological system as compared to
an aerobic system offers several advantages. The anaerobic system
requires much less energy since aeration is not required and the
anaerobic system produces less than 10 percent of the sludge of an
aerobic process. In addition, because the biological process is
contained in a sealed reactor, odors are eliminated. Based on EPA
sampling results, the AFB treatment system successfully removes over 98
percent of BOD5, over 97 percent of COD, and over 99 percent
of propylene glycol from deicing wastestreams. This treatment reduces
the BOD5 and COD loads discharged to receiving waters by
over 98 and 97 percent, respectively. Two airports in the United States
use the AFB technology: Albany International Airport in Albany, New
York, and Akron-Canton Regional Airport, in Akron, Ohio. Additionally,
Portland International Airport in Oregon recently installed an AFB
system and T.F. Green Airport in Providence, Rhode Island is planning
the installation of this technology.
3. Pollution Prevention Technologies
EPA has identified several technologies currently in use at
airports across the United States that may reduce ADF usage. The
following section describes the major P2 approaches EPA identified
during this rulemaking. EPA notes that it did not identify these ADF P2
approaches as a technology basis for BAT or NSPS in today's final rule
due to a lack of available quantitative data on the actual pollutant
reductions that these technologies may achieve and, moreover, because
of a lack of data correlating minimized ADF application with safe
deicing practices. However, EPA is aware that many airports use these
technologies successfully and EPA encourages additional use.
Furthermore, EPA notes that the collection technologies evaluated for
today's rule are only capable of collecting a portion of the applied
ADF. Therefore, to the extent that P2 technologies are proven to be
effective, they have the ability to considerably reduce or eliminate
ADF discharges. The ability to reduce the amount of applied deicing
chemicals will not only have a positive environmental effect, but may
also be cost-effective, as the decreases in costs of purchased deicing
chemicals may offset the cost of the technology itself.
EPA applauds all efforts to develop deicing chemicals and
approaches that reduce or eliminate pollutant discharges. In order to
ensure that this rule doesn't prevent such approaches as they become
proven, feasible, and available, today's final rule includes a
provision to apply a P2 credit against the standard ADF collection
[[Page 29175]]
requirement. See Section X.C., ``Compliance with the NSPS
Requirement,'' in this preamble.
In addition EPA notes that in discussions with the major airline
and airport industry associations, ATA and ACI-NA, they stressed their
commitment to pollution prevention approaches to reduce aircraft
deicing discharges, while ensuring safety at all times, and the great
strides they had made on pollution prevention approaches in addition to
employing ADF collection technologies (see DCN AD01333). As a follow-up
to these conversations, industry associations submitted a description
of a voluntary pollution reduction program designed to further spur the
industry towards safely reducing ADF discharges to the environment.
Under the program, these associations intend to work together to:
Conduct outreach and facilitate information exchange on
the program and available pollution reduction technologies;
Encourage the development, testing, and commercially
appropriate deployment of pollution reduction technologies;
Provide information characterizing the qualitative and
quantitative performance and environmental benefits of appropriate
pollution reduction technologies;
Develop a quantitative goal for environmental benefits to
be achieved through this program;
Inventory pollution reduction technologies adopted during
this program;
Develop a comparison of the environmental benefits of
pollution reduction technologies adopted during the program with the
quantitative goal; and
Report the results of the above components to EPA.
EPA supports this pollution prevention program and believes it has the
potential to significantly reduce aircraft deicing discharges in a safe
manner. See DCN AD01334 for more details on industry's pollution
prevention program.
a. Infrared (IR) Deicing Systems
A few U.S. airports have used IR heating systems for several years
and these systems have been demonstrated to deice aircraft effectively.
One type of IR system consists of an open-ended hangar-type structure
with IR generators mounted inside, suspended from the ceiling. The IR
equipment is designed to use specific wavelengths that heat ice and
snow, and minimize heating of aircraft components. The IR energy level
and wavelength may be adjusted to suit the type of aircraft. Although
the system can deice an aircraft, it cannot provide aircraft with anti-
icing protection. Consequently, when the ambient temperature is below
freezing, anti-icing fluid is typically applied to the aircraft after
it leaves the hangar. In addition, a small amount of deicing fluid may
be required for deicing areas of the aircraft not reached by the IR
radiation, such as the flap tracks and elevators. The system,
therefore, does not completely replace glycol-based fluids, but may
greatly reduce the volume required.
Vendors claim use of an IR system reduces the amount of Type I ADF
required by up to 90 percent. John F. Kennedy International Airport, in
New York, uses an IR system for a small percentage of its flights.
b. Forced Air/Hot Air Deicing Systems
Forced air/hot air deicing systems are currently in operation at a
few U.S. airports. These systems use forced air to blow snow and ice
from aircraft surfaces. Some systems allow deicing fluids to be added
to the forced air stream at different flow settings (e.g., 9 and 20
gallons/minute), while other systems require separate application of
deicing fluid. Several vendors are currently developing self-contained,
truck-mounted versions of these forced-air systems, and most systems
can be retrofitted onto existing deicing trucks.
The double gantry forced-air spray system is a similar method to
truck-mounted forced-air systems. The gantries support a set of high-
and low-pressure nozzles, which blast the aircraft surfaces with heated
air at a pressure of 40 to 500 pounds per square inch. When weather
conditions are severe, a small volume of water and glycol may be added
to the air stream to remove dense coverings of snow and ice. Airfield
use of the gantry system has been limited, perhaps because it is a
permanently mounted system that has been known to cause delays in
aircraft departures.
c. Product Substitution
Another solution to environmental problems associated with deicing
chemicals is to replace chemical deicers with more environment-friendly
products. In the ADF products category, initially the predominant
deicers were based on ethylene glycol, whereas in recent years,
propylene glycol-based deicers, which are less toxic to mammals, have
become more widely used. Chemical manufacturers, the aviation industry,
and the U.S. Air Force are continuing to explore development of deicers
that could generate lower levels of pollutants compared to the glycol-
based products.
4. Airfield Pavement Deicing Control Technologies
EPA identified product substitution as an available control
technology for airfield pavement deicing chemicals. The Agency did not
identify an available economically achievable technology to collect and
treat wastewater containing pavement deicing pollutants.
Several types of products, such as potassium acetate, sodium
formate, and sodium acetate, are available as alternatives to pavement
deicers containing urea. The results from EPA's airport questionnaire
reported that 83 percent of primary airports use airfield pavement
deicers that do not contain urea. The most widely used substitute
product, potassium acetate, accounts for 63 percent (by weight) of the
annual airfield pavement deicer usage in the United States.
E. Regulated Pollutants
EPA identified 31 pollutants of concern that stem directly from
airport deicing operations. For today's final rule, EPA identified COD
as a pollutant of concern to be controlled for discharges of collected
ADF contaminated stormwater and urea and ammonia as pollutants of
concern to be controlled in discharges of airfield deicing contaminated
stormwater. See Section 6 of the TDD for a full discussion of
pollutants of concern and for EPA's rationale for selecting regulated
pollutants.
V. Final Regulation
A. BPT and BCT
EPA considered whether, in this rule, it was necessary to establish
BPT limits, given that pavement deicers will be controlled at the BAT
level, which is no less stringent than the BPT limit. Because the same
wastestream that would be controlled by BPT is also controlled by BAT,
it is not necessary for EPA to promulgate BPT effluent limitations
guidelines for the Airport Deicing Category, given that the BAT
collection and treatment requirements on that wastestream would be at
least as stringent as BPT requirements. Similarly, EPA is not
establishing BCT limitations for this industry because the same
wastestream that would be controlled by BCT is being controlled by BAT.
[[Page 29176]]
B. BAT
1. Airfield Deicing
a. Applicability/Scope of Airfield Deicing Discharge Requirements
EPA did not receive significant comments regarding the scope of the
requirements for controlling airfield deicing discharges. EPA has
retained the scope as described in the proposal: primary airports with
departures of 1,000 or more non-propeller aircraft departures.
b. Candidate BAT Airfield Deicing Technologies: Product Substitution of
Pavement Deicers Containing Urea
In general, airports discharge airfield pavement deicing chemicals
without treatment, due to the difficulty and expense of collecting and
treating the large volumes of contaminated stormwater generated on
paved airfield surfaces. EPA is not aware of an available means to
control 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 alternative chemical deicing products. In particular, EPA has
identified ammonia and COD from airfield deicing as pollutants of
concern, and both of these pollutants are a byproduct of pavement
deicers containing urea. Accordingly, to address discharges of ammonia
from airfield pavement, EPA identified one candidate for best available
technology, namely, product substitution, or discontinuing the use of
pavement deicers containing urea and using alternative pavement deicers
instead. EPA found that the use of deicers without urea is the best
available technology for reducing discharges of ammonia from pavement
deicing, because it is safe, technologically feasible, and available
across the industry. The technology does not produce discharges of
ammonia as produced by deicers containing urea. Currently, only about
10 percent of chemical pavement deicers applied nationwide contain
urea. The most widely used pavement deicer is potassium acetate, which
represents 63 percent of all chemical pavement deicers applied
nationwide.
2. Aircraft Deicing
For today's final rule, based on comments to the proposed rule, EPA
revised the requirements related to the collection and discharge of
ADF.
a. Applicability/Scope of Aircraft Deicing Discharge Requirements
Commenters raised multiple concerns with EPA's proposed approach of
using departures as a proxy for ADF use. First, commenters explained
that an airport in the very southern portion of the United States could
have significant departures but use little ADF. Second, commenters
requested that EPA consider a de minimis cut-off to account for
defrosting (i.e. ADF application in the absence of active
precipitation). Under the proposal, defrosting would be counted towards
the volume of ADF required to be collected, yet commenters claim that
it evaporates and is unable to be collected. Finally, airports with low
overall ADF usage also requested EPA consider a de minimis cut-off.
They cited concerns that the costs of the collection and treatment for
ADF at these airports are disproportionally high in relation to the
amount of pollutants generated. For example, one commenter, a non-hub
primary airport, explained that it typically receives little snow and
conducts occasional defrosting of aircraft, and generates no ADF-
contaminated water, yet it would effectively be required to purchase a
GCV if subject to the 20 percent collection requirement.
EPA reviewed its data with respect to each of these comments. On
further review of the data and comments, EPA agrees that ADF usage in
general is not closely related solely to the number of departures at
airports. As such, in considering options for today's final rule, EPA
did not base ADF collection and associated discharge options on the
number of departures. Instead, EPA considered options based directly on
estimates of the overall volume of ADF use, which EPA indicated in the
proposal was another possible threshold criterion for the rule (74 FR
44714).
EPA reevaluated ADF usage data for all existing airports. This
evaluation showed that airports with less than 30,000 gallons of
available ADF may conduct a significant amount of defrosting, rather
than deicing. See DCN AD01335. Defrosting results in limited amounts of
ADF available for collection--effectively rendering collection
technologies infeasible. Additionally, EPA found that the costs and
economic impacts of ADF collection and treatment technologies for
airports using less than 60,000 gallons of normalized ADF annually were
disproportionally higher than those with greater ADF use.\1\ See DCN
AD01338 for additional details. As a result, in today's final rule, EPA
evaluated options based on a cut-off of greater than or equal to 60,000
gallons of normalized ADF per deicing season. Under this option,
airports at or above this threshold would be subject to these
requirements, but airports below this threshold would have the
technology-based limitations for aircraft deicing discharges in their
NPDES permits determined by the permitting authority on a case-by-case,
best professional judgment basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA notes, however, that many existing airports with
annualized normalized ADF usage below 60,000 currently employ
deicing collection technologies including centralized deicing pads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Exempted Wastewater (Those Associated With Deicing for Safe Taxiing)
EPA also altered its consideration of exempting wastewaters
associated with deicing for safe taxiing. The proposed rule included a
provision that would have exempted ADF-contaminated wastewater
associated with deicing for safe taxiing from the proposed collection
and treatment requirement. EPA proposed to limit deicing for safe
taxiing to 25 gallons of ADF, based on an allowance at Denver
International Airport (DIA), as the maximum amount that could be
applied to an aircraft for the purposes of safe taxiing. This
definition was intended to apply to airports with CDPs, and to prohibit
conducting complete deicing of an aircraft at a terminal area without a
collection system, instead of using the deicing pad. However,
commenters expressed concern that climatic conditions at airports in
the Midwest, Alaska, and on the East Coast differ greatly from those at
DIA: commenters claimed that any ``deicing for safe taxiing''
allowances established at DIA cannot form a reasonable basis for
application to airports in other regions of the country. In addition,
cargo aircraft sometimes experience layovers in excess of 24 hours,
potentially increasing the amount of snow or ice that must be removed
to achieve compliance with FAA regulations. EPA agrees with the
commenters and therefore the final rule does not limit the amount of
ADF sprayed for the purposes of safe taxiing, nor does EPA require an
airport to collect and treat ADF applied for safe taxiing purposes.
c. Candidate BAT Technology Bases for Collection and Discharge
Requirements
EPA is not aware of an available and economically achievable
technology that is capable of capturing 100 percent of the sprayed ADF.
Section IV.D.1 details the available technologies for
[[Page 29177]]
collecting ADF, which include GCVs, plug and pump equipment, and CDPs.
EPA estimates that these technologies collect 20 percent, 40 percent,
and 60 percent of available ADF, respectively.
Commenters raised multiple concerns about CDPs, the technology that
EPA proposed to identify as the basis for the 60 percent collection
requirement. First, commenters raised concerns that CDPs are not
feasible at all locations because of lack of space. Some of these
commenters provided detailed engineering plans and analyses
demonstrating their specific space constraints. Second, commenters
raised concerns that using CDPs for all deicing operations would cause
traffic and/or safety problems. Third, commenters asserted that the use
of CDPs would lead to flight delays and that EPA had not included costs
associated with such delays in its analyses. In addition, FAA indicated
that it had similar concerns to those raised by industry commenters,
regarding the identification of centralized deicing facilities as BAT.
FAA indicated that the 60 percent collection requirement based on the
exclusive use of CDPs might adversely affect the operational efficiency
of some of the nation's largest and busiest airports. Further, FAA was
concerned that for those land-constrained airports, construction and
operation of CDPs for all deicing operations would not be able to meet
FAA design standards. In explaining its concerns, FAA noted that delays
associated with the use of CDPs would be extremely costly to the
nation's productivity, economy, businesses, and the traveling public.
After considering these comments and reviewing the information in
its record, EPA is not establishing a 60 percent ADF collection
requirement based on CDPs for BAT. First, in response to FAA's concerns
about the exclusive use of deicing pads for aircraft deicing, EPA
contacted a number of large hub airports that currently use CDPs. EPA
found the current percentage of flights for which these airports use
the CDPs ranges from 50 to 95 percent. The airports explained that
various operational or weather-related issues may make deicing pad use
for all flights cumbersome if not impossible, (i.e., severe system-wide
delays), and require them to deice at the gate in some circumstances.
EPA shares the commenters' and FAA's concerns that moving to exclusive
use of CDPs for all deicing might lead to operational issues and
delays. EPA, in discussions with FAA, attempted to craft regulatory
provisions to allow an airport limited ability to bypass the use of a
centralized pad in order to avoid these circumstances. However, limited
data on the site-specific nature of this industry left EPA unable to
develop regulatory provisions that would give airports the flexibility
they need to avoid significant operational issues and delays. Second,
based on public comments and information from FAA, EPA is concerned
that some large airports critical to efficient air traffic operations
in this country are space (land) constrained, and that building well-
located CDPs for all deicing operations at these airports is likely not
feasible for that reason. At the time of the proposal, EPA estimated
that 14 airports would be subject to the 60 percent collection
requirement. Because the data in EPA's record indicate that many of
these airports currently meet this requirement, EPA estimated
approximately seven airports would likely need to install pads as a
result of the proposed requirement. Of these seven airports, four are
large hubs, which, over years of expansions and other improvements,
have already built out the majority of the land available to them. EPA
has concluded that the lack of remaining available land, coupled with
their existing layouts, has left these airports in a position where a
CDP conforming to FAA's Advisory Circulars on deicing pad design,
(e.g., in a location that aircraft can travel to safely and efficiently
to conduct deicing operations) cannot be constructed.
Therefore, for today's final rule, EPA has not established a 60
percent ADF collection requirement, which would have been based on
identification of centralized deicing facilities as BAT for 100 percent
of aircraft departures. This technology is not available at a number of
existing airports due to land constraints, and therefore is not
technologically feasible on a nationwide basis. For this and the other
reasons discussed above, EPA finds that centralized deicing facilities
should not be identified as BAT for this nationwide rulemaking. See CWA
304(b)(2)(B)--factors relating to the assessment of BAT include ``the
process employed, the engineering aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques, * * * and such other factors as the
Administrator deems appropriate.'' EPA then considered the other two
technologies described in the proposal as a possible basis of BAT for
aircraft deicing discharges for today's final rule: 40 percent ADF
collection requirement based on plug and pump with GCVs and 20 percent
ADF collection requirement based on GCVs. With either of these
collection technologies, as was the case in the proposed rule, EPA also
included numeric COD limitations for direct discharges of collected ADF
based on anaerobic treatment. For a discussion of other technologies
examined but not selected as candidates for the basis of the COD
limitations, see Section VII.E.2 in the proposed rule preamble (74 FR
44692) and Section 7 of the TDD.
3. Options Considered for Today's Final Rule
Using the technology bases identified above for airfield and
aircraft deicing discharges, EPA developed three primary options for
today's final rule. All three of these options have the same airfield
pavement deicing discharge requirements based on product substitution
of deicers that do not contain urea, but would vary the approach to
control aircraft deicing discharges:
Option 1: 40 percent ADF collection requirement for large
and medium ADF users (based on plug and pump with GCVs); numeric COD
limitations for direct discharges of collected ADF (based on anaerobic
treatment).
Option 2: 40 percent ADF collection requirement for the
large ADF users (based on plug and pump with GCVs) and 20 percent ADF
collection requirement for medium ADF users (based on GCVs); numeric
COD limitations for direct discharges of collected ADF (based on
anaerobic treatment).
Option 3: Site-Specific Aircraft Deicing Discharge
Controls: Do not establish effluent limitation guidelines in the final
rule for aircraft deicing discharges, but instead, leave the
determination of BAT requirements for each airport to the discretion of
the permit writer on a case-by-case, ``best professional judgment''
basis based on site-specific conditions.
Under the first option, in addition to the airfield pavement
requirements, all airports that use greater than or equal to 60,000
gallons of normalized ADF annually would be required to collect 40
percent of available ADF based on plug and pump with GCV technologies.
In the proposed rule, EPA considered but did not identify this as its
lead option because it found its costs to be comparable to those of
CDPs, while CDPs achieved greater ADF collection. In the proposal, EPA
therefore identified CDPs as BAT. EPA subsequently determined that CDPs
are not achievable nationwide for existing airports and dropped it as
an option for consideration in the final rule. This left the plug and
pump with GCV option as the technology, among those that remained under
consideration for today's rule, that would achieve the greatest
collection of ADF.
[[Page 29178]]
Under the second option, in addition to the airfield pavement
requirements, all airports that use greater than or equal to 60,000
gallons of normalized ADF annually but less than 460,000 gallons of
normalized ADF (``medium ADF users,'' estimated to be 42 airports)
would be required to collect 20 percent of available ADF based on GCVs,
and airports that use more than 460,000 gallons of normalized ADF
(``large ADF users,'' estimated to be 14 airports) would be required to
collect 40 percent of available ADF based on the use of plug and pump
with GCV technology.
Under both Options 1 and 2, the requirement to meet numeric
effluent limits for COD for the collected ADF would need to be met
prior to commingling with other wastestreams prior to discharge. For a
discussion of other technologies examined but not selected as
candidates for the basis of the nationwide COD limitations, see Section
VII.E.2 in the proposed rule preamble (74 FR 44692) and Section 7 of
the TDD.
Under the third option, EPA would establish national deicing
discharge controls for airfield pavement deicing only. BAT limitations
for aircraft deicing discharge would continue to be established by the
permitting authority on a case-by-case basis.
Table V-1 provides the estimated national cost of each option along
with the estimated national removals.
Table V-1--Cost of Final Rule Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
pollutant annualized
Option removals costs (2006
(million lb) $million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 33.0 $78.4
2....................................... 30.2 49.4
3....................................... 16.4 3.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. BAT Options Selection
EPA is selecting Option 3 as best available technology for
controlling airport deicing discharges. EPA has determined the best
available technology for controlling airfield pavement discharges is
product substitution. The record shows that products without urea are
widely available in the industry, and in fact are already in use at a
majority of airports across the country.
With respect to aircraft deicing discharge controls, EPA's record
demonstrates that ADF collection and associated treatment technologies
are technically feasible for many airports. Data supplied from the
industry through EPA's nationally representative survey of airports
indicates that dozens of airports currently use GCVs and plug and pump
collection systems, in addition to a myriad of P2 technologies and
practices, ranging from alternative means of applying ADF such as
forced air nozzles, to alternate deicing technologies such as IR
deicing. In addition, many airports also employ a variety of treatment
technologies to treat collected ADF prior to discharge. Thus, EPA
concludes this industry has several technology options potentially
available for mitigating the pollutants associated with aircraft
deicing activities. See the TDD for more information about collection
and P2 technologies.
However, 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 because such determinations appropriately
consider localized operational constraints (e.g., traffic patterns),
land availability, safety considerations, and potential impacts to
flight schedules. Based on the information in its record, EPA cannot
identify with precision the extent to which such limitations may
preclude, at any particular airport, the use of the technologies that
it considered for BAT control of aircraft deicing discharges for
today's final rule. However, the record demonstrates that such
limitations exist and are not isolated or insignificant. In light of
this finding, EPA decided that it should not establish national ADF
collection (and associated discharge requirements) based on any one or
more of the ADF collection technologies as the presumptive BAT-level
control technology. Rather, site-specific proceedings are the
appropriate forum for weighing all relevant considerations in
establishing aircraft deicing discharge controls.
More specifically, commenters provided by airport and airline
industry on the proposed regulation raised concerns about the impacts
that ADF collection technologies may have on safety and operations at
airports across the country. They also commented on the lack of
available space at many land constrained airports for ADF collection
and treatment technologies. EPA reviewed the information submitted in
comments, subsequent information provided by industry, and information
obtained from site visits to thoroughly evaluate these concerns. After
reviewing this information, EPA agrees with commenters that while many
airports likely have the ability to implement some form of collection
or P2 technologies in order to mitigate pollutant discharges associated
with aircraft deicing, space, safety and operational considerations may
limit the selection of the specific technologies and the extent to
which they can be implemented at any particular airport. This finding
became particularly apparent after reviewing questionnaire responses
for some of the airports at which EPA also conducted site visits. EPA
found that its ``model facility'' approach was not a suitable
substitute for a detailed analysis of the site constraints at each
airport. For example, a permit authority may need to evaluate existing
traffic patterns at an airport, not only of the aircraft, but also of
the service vehicles to determine if additional collection vehicles
would lead to unacceptable safety concerns. With respect to land
constraints, in the absence of detailed airport schematics, or without
conducting a detailed site visit at each airport, EPA cannot determine
if adequate space exists to incorporate the specific treatment and
collection technologies evaluated as the basis for today's final rule.
Additionally, industry and FAA, in particular, have expressed
overarching concerns about possible delays and economic impact that
could result from the use of plug and pump and GCVs, both at specific
airports and nationwide. EPA agrees that delays must be a factor in
considering today's possible requirements and recognizes that such
delays fundamentally affect U.S and
[[Page 29179]]
international business and recreational interests.
Airplane deicing activities, by their very nature, occur during
freezing precipitation events. For some airports, even small amounts of
precipitation can lead to delayed aircraft departures--even without
deicing activity and/or ADF collection and treatment. As such, when
delays occur at an airport during inclement weather, it is difficult to
determine whether the delays are associated with the weather, the ADF
collection and treatment technologies, or both. Further, even small
delays at certain hub airports have a ripple effect that can affect the
entire national air traffic schedule.
Some airports have identified procedures to mitigate or prevent
delays associated with aircraft deicing discharge controls. These
airports can handle large amounts of precipitation and/or operate ADF
collection and treatment technologies with little or no delay, but
these approaches may not be applicable nationwide. Further, the extent
of delays deemed acceptable is likely to vary by airport. As was the
case with land constraints, the confounding factors that need to be
considered to evaluate possible delays that may be associated with 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.
While the facts stated above do not necessarily preclude the
ability of an airport to collect and treat spent ADF, they do
illustrate why EPA did not select any of the technologies considered as
BAT for today's final rule, and why a site-specific BAT determination
for ADF collection and treatment requirements is the proper approach
for today's final rule.
Therefore, for the reasons identified above, EPA determined Option
3 is the only technologically feasible and available option considered
for today's final BAT requirements. Option 3 would remove 4.4 million
pounds of ammonia and 12 million pounds of COD, with a projected annual
cost of $3.5 million. The costs of Option 3 are reasonable in terms of
the pollutant reductions achieved ($0.21/lb). Further, as discussed in
more detail in Section VII, EPA finds Option 3 is economically
achievable. In addition, EPA examined the non-water quality impacts
anticipated from compliance with Option 3 requirements and found none
or only very minor impacts in comparison to typical industry energy
use, emissions generation and sludge generation. See Section IX, ``Non-
Water Quality Environmental Impacts.'' Therefore, based on all the
factors above, EPA is identifying Option 3 as BAT and has based today's
final rule on the Option 3 BAT requirements.
C. NSPS
1. New Source Definition
In the proposed rule, ``new source'' would have included both new
airports and new runways constructed at existing airports. Commenters
objected to the inclusion of new runways at existing airports in the
new source definition. They noted that a new runway is not a source of
pollutant discharges from aircraft deicing activity and that a new
runway is not ``substantially independent'' of an existing source as
required under the regulatory definition of ``new source.'' See 40 CFR
122.2 and 40 CFR 122.29(b)(1). Commenters acknowledge that a new runway
may lead to additional discharges associated with airfield deicing, but
noted that the requirements for airfield deicing discharges are the
same for new and existing discharges. With respect to the requirements
associated with discharges from aircraft deicing, they explained that a
new runway is not a source of new discharges because aircraft deicing
is performed at locations away from airport runways. Moreover, they
explained that unlike a plant or factory from which a new source of
discharge associated with a new process, production line, or piece of
equipment can be clearly distinguished as a new source of discharge
associated with an existing source, a new runway is not operated
independently from other runways at an airport. Rather, a new runway
and associated deicing operations are part of a wholly integrated
airport system. After carefully considering these comments, EPA agrees
that new runways should not be treated as new sources because new
runways are generally too integral to the operations of an existing
airport to be considered ``substantially independent'' of the existing
airport.
2. NSPS Applicability
For today's final rule, the applicability of the NSPS provisions is
effectively the same as that in the proposed rule. New primary airports
with greater than or equal to 1,000 annual departures by non-propeller-
driven aircraft are subject to the provisions of Sec. 449.11(a) and
(b).
In the proposed rule, Sec. 449.1 defined the applicability of the
overall category as covering primary airports with at least 1,000
annual scheduled commercial air carrier jet departures. In the final
rule, the language in Sec. 449.1 has been simplified to just ``primary
airports,'' and the 1,000-departure threshold criteria are included in
the provisions at Sec. Sec. 449.10 and 449.11. This arrangement
results in the same requirements for new source airports that EPA had
intended in the proposed rule, with a clarification: A new primary
airport with initially less than 1,000 departures is a new source, but
not subject to the requirements of Sec. 449.11. If the airport
eventually exceeds 1,000 departures, then the provisions of Sec.
449.11 apply.
The proposed rule defined the threshold for the new source ADF
collection and associated discharge requirements as any new source with
10,000 or more annual departures. As was the case with existing
sources, commenters explained that the number of departures is not a
good analog for the amount of ADF usage, citing, for example, airports
in the South that may have significant numbers of departures but
typically need to deice their aircraft only once a year. After
reviewing these comments and the information in its record, EPA agrees
that departures alone are not the most appropriate indicator of ADF
usage.
Therefore, for today's final rule, in addition to the proposed
departure threshold, EPA is adding a geographical component to define
which new sources are subject to the ADF collection and discharge
requirements. As explained in Section V.B, EPA determined that, on a
national basis, ADF collection may be infeasible at airports with
annual ADF usage below 30,000 gallons. ADF usage below 30,000 gallons
may reflect significant volumes of defrosting activity, which does not
leave ADF available for collection.
Unlike existing sources, however, new sources do not have past ADF
usage data available for establishing a threshold for being subject to
ADF collection requirements. Therefore, in combination with the
proposed departure threshold, in today's final rule, the Agency is
incorporating a geographically based component that is closely aligned
with a 30,000 gallon annual ADF usage threshold. In addition to
applying the proposed departure threshold, EPA is making NSPS
collection requirements for ADF applicable based on whether the airport
is located within specific colder climatic zones (called a ``heating
degree day [HDD] category'') as documented by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). For airports within the scope of
today's rule,
[[Page 29180]]
location in a warmer climate zone is generally associated with the use
of smaller volumes of ADF.
HDD means the number of degrees per day the daily average
temperature is below 65 degrees Fahrenheit. The daily average
temperature is the mean of the maximum and minimum temperature for a
24-hour period. The annual HDD value is derived by summing the daily
HDDs over a calendar year period. HDDs are computed using data from the
U.S. National 1961-1990 Climate Normals, published by the National
Climatic Data Center of NOAA. The original data are in whole degrees
Fahrenheit. HDD values range from 0 to more than 9,000. NOAA presents
this information in 1,000-HDD increment groups. EPA used the NOAA
information to create HDD groups. These groups range from A to I, with
group A being the lowest HDD values (less than 1,000 HDD) and group I
being the highest (greater than 9,000 HDD).
EPA identified the corresponding HDD groups for existing airports
and then compared the HDD group to ADF usage at each airport. In
general, airports with greater than 10,000 departures in HDD groups A
through C (3,000 HDD or less) used less than 30,000 gallons of ADF
while those in HDD groups D through I used more than 30,000 gallons of
ADF. As a result, these HDD groups in combination with the departure
cut-off provide a dividing line nationwide that corresponds well with
the ADF usage dividing line that EPA determined makes ADF collection
feasible. EPA concludes that this approach best captures those new
airports that will conduct more frequent deicing operations, as opposed
to defrosting operations, and excludes those new airports that will
likely conduct infrequent deicing. See DCN AD01267 for EPA's analysis
of HDD categories.
In addition, EPA received comments questioning the feasibility of
ADF collection technologies for airports located in Alaska. These
commenters stated that deicing wastewater generation at Alaskan
airports is substantially different from airports in the lower 48
states. First, often airports in Alaska will suspend air traffic as
opposed to conducting deicing operations. Second, commenters stated
that long periods of below freezing temperatures result in runoff
characteristics that are substantially different from those is the
lower 48 states and, as such, deicing materials are not available for
collection (due to lack of runoff) making collection technologies
infeasible. The data provided in the survey responses from Alaskan
airports show that airports in this climactic zone use widely varying
amounts of ADF per departure. Based on this data, EPA is unable to
conclude that Alaskan airports conduct significant deicing, rather than
defrosting, and as such, today's final new source ADF collection and
discharge requirements do not apply to new airports in Alaska.
For the airports that are excluded from the NSPS requirements in
today's final rule, permit authorities would determine an applicable
new source performance standard on a case-by-case, best professional
judgment basis.
3. NSPS Option Selection
For today's final rule, EPA evaluated ``best available demonstrated
control technologies'' for purposes of setting NSPS under CWA section
306. Section 306 directs EPA to promulgate NSPS ``for the control of
the discharge of pollutants which reflects the greatest degree of
effluent reduction which the Administrator determines to be achievable
through application of the BADCT, processes, operating methods, or
other alternatives, including, where practicable, a standard permitting
no discharge of pollutants.'' Congress envisioned that new treatment
systems could meet tighter controls than existing sources because of
the opportunity to incorporate the most efficient processes and
treatment systems into the facility design. As a result, NSPS should
represent the most stringent controls attainable through the
application of the BADCT for all pollutants (that is, conventional,
nonconventional, and priority pollutants).
After careful consideration of the information in its record, EPA
is today promulgating the same NSPS requirements for both airfield
pavement deicing discharges and airplane deicing discharges as it
proposed; however, the applicability of the NSPS requirements has
changed. Clearly, product substitution, the technology basis for the
airfield deicing discharge requirements promulgated today for existing
airports, is fully applicable to new airports. EPA determined that,
just as with existing sources, all new sources would be capable of
using airfield deicing products without urea. Furthermore, product
substitution represents the greatest level of reduction in ammonia
among the available technologies considered. Accordingly, EPA
identifies product substitution of non-urea-containing airfield deicers
as the best demonstrated available control technology for all new
sources. As with BAT, there would be two alternatives for meeting this
effluent limitation: either a certification requirement or a numeric
limit on ammonia for all direct discharges of the stormwater from the
airfields.
With respect to aircraft deicing discharge controls, EPA, in
consultation with FAA, finds that its determination about safety,
space, and operational constraints that may be present at existing
airports for all the collection and treatment technologies discussed in
today's final rule (CDPs, plug and pump with GCVs, GCVs alone and AFB
treatment) would not similarly apply to new airports. This finding is
supported because new airports can be designed to minimize space and
logistical constraints that have been identified for retrofits at
existing airports (see DCN AD01285). Further, among the ADF collection
technologies that EPA considered, CDPs collect the greatest level of
available ADF and are available to new sources in this category. With
respect to new airports, the use of CDPs does not present the space/
land, safety, or operational issues that would be raised in connection
with the use of deicing pads at existing sources. In addition, CDPs in
combination with AFBs for treatment of collected ADF are not so costly
in comparison to the cost of a new airport \2\ that they would be
considered a ``barrier to entry.'' Moreover, according to FAA, when
designed properly, CDPs often improve traffic flow and reduce delays
associated with aircraft deicing. 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, which includes deicing
facilities. See DCN AD01285. The new airport must be designed and built
on enough land, in total, to accommodate a deicing pad and AFB
treatment system (or other technology that meets the 60 percent
collection requirement and the discharge requirements), to be installed
either during initial construction or at a later time when it exceeds
the 10,000 departure threshold. The airport sponsor would design its
layout of runway(s), taxiways, location of terminal(s) and other
buildings with sufficient space so that deicing facilities can be
installed later without the need to acquire additional land. Therefore,
EPA is promulgating the same NSPS requirements for airfield pavement
deicing discharges as for existing sources, but in contrast to existing
sources, EPA is promulgating NSPS requirements for ADF collection and
discharge requirements at new airports
[[Page 29181]]
based on the use of CDPs and anaerobic biological treatment. Meeting
this combination of new source requirements for both airfield pavement
deicing discharges and aircraft deicing discharges would not be an
economic barrier to entry for new airports, as the cost of new airport
construction, even at small airports, is significantly greater than the
costs associated with product substitution and collection and/or
treatment of spent deicing fluids. See Section VII.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Includes total costs for controls both for airfield pavement
and aircraft deicing discharges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a point of clarification, EPA is promulgating the same numeric
COD limitations for collected ADF that is discharged directly for new
sources as was proposed. The technology basis, AFB system, is available
to new airports. In addition, AFB achieves the greatest level of
pollutant removals of those technologies considered during the
development of this regulation, and the installation and use of this
technology is not economically a barrier to entry for new airports.
Additionally, although EPA did not identify pollution prevention
approaches and technologies as a basis for NSPS, these technologies may
be effective at reducing available ADF. Moreover, future pollution
prevention technologies may become available to aid in meeting the NSPS
requirements. As such, the final rule includes a provision that allows
dischargers to request a credit to be applied to the NSPS ADF
requirement. See Section X.C.3 for additional information and examples.
D. PSES and PSNS
EPA is not promulgating PSES and PSNS for the Airport Deicing
Category. Although some airports in the United States discharge ADF-
contaminated stormwater to POTWs, EPA received no comments or other
information indicating that POTWs currently have problems of pollutant
pass-through, interference, or sludge contamination stemming from these
discharges that would necessitate the promulgation of national
categorical pretreatment standards.
Like the biological treatment system that forms the basis for
today's COD new source performance standard, POTWs typically employ
biological treatment systems and are similarly designed to remove
organic pollutants that contribute to COD and/or BOD5. In
general, POTWs have the capability to achieve comparable removals to
the NSPS technology basis. However, some airports and POTWs may need to
make operational adjustments in order to process the wastewater
effectively while avoiding POTW upset. EPA received a comment about the
Downriver Treatment Facility in Detroit, Michigan, which accepts ADF
wastewater from the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport. The
treatment plant experienced viscous bulking due to a nutrient imbalance
that occurred during the months that ADF was accepted. The issue was
resolved by removing phosphorus at a later stage in the treatment plant
system, rather than from the raw wastewater. The airport also made
significant changes in order to segregate the deicing wastewater,
collect and recycle the most concentrated ADF wastewater, and control
the amount and concentration of wastewater discharged to the POTW.
EPA is aware that high concentration or ``slug'' discharges of
deicing wastewater can create POTW upset. The national pretreatment
program regulations specifically prohibit industrial users from
discharging high concentrations of oxygen-demanding pollutants to POTWs
if they cause interference to the POTW. See 40 CFR 403.5(b)(4). Under
40 CFR 403.5(c), control authorities may set and enforce ``local
limits'' for airport discharges to POTWs to implement the prohibitions
listed in Sec. 403.5(b)(4). This provision ensures that any potential
limits would protect against POTW interference by the oxygen-demanding
pollutants in airport deicing discharges. See ``Local Limits
Development Guidance,'' document no. EPA 833-R-04-002A, July 2004,
available on EPA's Web site at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/pretreatment/pstandards.cfm. As a result, many airports that discharge to POTWs have
airport-specific requirements on allowable BOD5 or COD
discharge loading per day. These limits on daily pollutant loadings are
specific to the receiving POTW. Airports usually meet this requirement
by storing deicing stormwater in ponds or tanks and metering the
discharge to meet the POTW permit loading requirements.
VI. Technology Costs and Pollutant Reductions
A. Compliance Costs
1. Overview
EPA estimated industry-wide compliance costs for the three options
considered for today's rule. This section summarizes EPA's approach for
estimating compliance costs, while the TDD provides detailed
information on these estimates. All final cost estimates are expressed
in terms of 2006 dollars and represent the cost of purchasing and
installing equipment and control technologies, annual operating and
maintenance costs, and associated monitoring and reporting
requirements. In general, this approach is the same as the approach
used in the proposal. However, some modifications were made for costing
specific technology pieces in the costing models, including the numbers
of GCVs per airport and the manner in which airports would store
collected ADF containing wastewater.
EPA estimated compliance costs associated with the three options
considered for today's rule using data collected through survey
responses, site visits, sampling episodes, specific airport requests,
and information supplied by vendors. Under the options considered,
certain airports would have limitations based on the substitution of
non-urea-containing pavement deicers and also would be required to
collect a percentage of their available ADF that was applied to
aircraft and treat the collected wastewater to comply with numeric
limitations if discharged directly. EPA estimated costs for an airport
to install technology to comply with the options, as well as to
annually operate and maintain equipment and perform required monitoring
or other activities to demonstrate ongoing compliance. EPA's cost
estimates represent the incremental costs for a facility when its
existing practices would not lead to compliance with the option being
evaluated.
EPA calculated costs based on a computerized design and cost model
developed for each of the technology options considered. EPA developed
facility-specific costs for each of the airport industry questionnaire
respondents (149 facilities), where each facility was treated as a
``model'' airport. Because the questionnaire respondents represent a
subset of the industry, EPA subsequently modeled the national
population by adjusting the costs upward to estimate the entire
affected airport population.
The questionnaire responses provided EPA with information on three
consecutive deicing seasons (2002 to 2005) for each of the model
facilities. Some portions of EPA's costing effort reflect the airports'
operations as reported for the three seasons. For example, estimates of
applied deicing chemicals were taken as an average of the years for
which the information was reported. In instances where aspects of an
airport's operation changed over the three-year period, EPA used the
most recent information.
EPA first established existing conditions (i.e., baseline) for each
model airport based on information and site plans submitted as part of
the airport questionnaire. EPA then determined what upgrades or
changes, if any, would
[[Page 29182]]
be required to comply with the option being considered for today's
final rule. For example, in general, when an airport lacked a
comparable collection system to the one used as the basis for an
option, EPA included costs for installation/operation and maintenance
of the option technology basis (e.g., plug and pump systems in
conjunction with GCVs).
2. Approach for Estimating Airfield Pavement Deicing Costs
Today's rule sets requirements for an airport to certify it uses
non-urea-containing airfield deicers (unless it chooses to meet a
numeric limit for ammonia). Through the airport questionnaire
responses, EPA estimates that 198 airports will be subject to today's
requirements. Of these 198 airports, 37 airports use deicers containing
urea for airfield pavement deicing. As detailed in Section IV.D.4, EPA
based its airfield pavement deicing requirement on product
substitution. EPA calculated the cost for facilities to substitute the
deicers containing urea with another widely available pavement deicer
that does not produce ammonia in the wastewater. EPA chose to model the
substitution costs on what it would cost to switch to potassium
acetate, specifically because that product accounts for 63 percent of
the applied chemical airfield deicer usage (by weight) in the United
States. These incremental costs include capital costs associated with
application equipment and storage, as appropriate, as well as the
differential chemical costs. EPA assumed that those airports that
currently do not use urea-containing deicers as a means of pavement
deicing would experience no cost associated with this portion of
today's regulation.
Using the facility area usage data as provided in the airport
questionnaire, and available literature on typical urea-containing
pavement deicer application rates, EPA estimated the airfield area that
was annually deiced at each model facility. Using the estimated model
facility deicing area in conjunction with the estimated $2.92/1,000
square feet cost of potassium acetate, EPA was able to calculate the
cost per model facility to perform airfield deicing with potassium
acetate. This cost was compared to the questionnaire-reported urea-
containing deicer costs to determine the incremental costs of switching
chemical airfield deicers. See the TDD for additional details on
costing for airfield deicing product substitution.
3. Approach for Developing Aircraft Deicing Costs
Under two of the options considered for this rule, certain existing
airports would be required to collect a percentage of their available
ADF, and treat the collected wastewater to comply with numeric effluent
limitations if it discharges directly. EPA estimated the costs for an
airport to comply with collection and treatment requirements, as
applicable, as well as perform required monitoring to demonstrate
compliance. Of the 198 airports within the scope of the aircraft
deicing controls considered for BAT, EPA expects that 55 airports would
exceed the threshold for ADF use that would trigger the collection/
discharge requirement. Costing for ADF collection is not relative to
baseline practices in all instances, as an airport's existing
collection technology may not be incrementally upgradeable to achieve
the required collection efficiency. As such, EPA assessed all costs to
comply with the options based on ADF collection and treatment with the
assumption that any airport required to make upgrades to its collection
and/or treatment system to meet the option would be starting from a
baseline of zero collection and treatment. Note that this assumption
does not carry through to pollutant removals, as baseline removals are
accounted for when assessing pollutant removals associated with today's
options. See section VI.B for more detail on the pollutant removal
calculations.
EPA first established existing conditions for each model airport
based on information and site plans submitted as part of the airport
questionnaire. EPA then determined what upgrades, if any, would be
required to comply with an option. As explained above, in general, when
an airport lacked a comparable collection system to the one used as the
basis for the option, EPA included costs for installation/
implementation of the option technology basis such as plug and pump
systems in conjunction with GCVs and an AFB treatment system for Option
1.
For those airports that would be required to collect additional ADF
and meet associated discharge requirements to comply with the option,
EPA estimated costs for storage/equalization (and associated piping to
transfer collected ADF to storage) as part of the costs of the
treatment technology. The option would not require, nor is it based on,
collecting the full volume of wastewater generated in a deicing season.
Rather, storage is included as part of the technology basis for flow
and/or pollutant equalization to support the AFB treatment system.
Where EPA estimates an airport would incur capital costs associated
with ADF collection and discharge requirements, the Agency included
costs for above-ground storage tanks, since above-ground storage tanks
will have less of an impact on subsurface utilities, for which EPA does
not have site-specific information. If airports needed to install
below-ground storage tanks for operational reasons, this would likely
be more expensive.
For the 15 airports that EPA anticipates would need to collect
additional quantities of ADF-contaminated stormwater to comply with
Option 1 or 2, EPA assumed these additional quantities would be
discharged directly, thus requiring treatment to comply with the COD
limitations. For example, for Option 1, this includes all airports that
EPA estimates collect less than 40 percent of available ADF.
Specifically, this includes those facilities that currently collect
some portion of ADF-contaminated stormwater and subsequently discharge
indirectly to a POTW or a centralized waste treatment (CWT) facility.
EPA recognizes that an airport may decide to discharge to a POTW or CWT
facility rather than directly discharge its wastewater. While this is
likely a lower cost alternative in some cases, EPA did not assume that
airports could discharge to a POTW or CWT, because the Agency does not
have enough information about the capacity or willingness of a specific
POTWs to receive these volumes of wastewater. To the extent that an
airport selects this alternative, EPA may have over-costed the option.
Additionally, airports may have costs associated with permit
application requirements or demonstrating compliance with Option 1 or
2, including assessing yearly ADF usage, determining ADF stormwater
collection, system inspections, and COD monitoring. Monitoring
requirements will continue to be determined by the permitting
authority. However, for purposes of estimating monitoring costs
associated with today's options, EPA assumed that airports that
directly discharge collected ADF would take a 24-hour composite sample
and analyze that for COD, and perform that analysis seven times per
week for the duration the treated discharge occurs. EPA made a similar
assumption for purposes of computing the weekly average effluent
limitation (see the TDD for additional details). As a conservative
estimate, EPA assumed a six-month discharge duration season for all
modeled facilities.
[[Page 29183]]
4. Calculation of National Costs
EPA categorized all of the costs as either capital costs (one-time
costs associated with planning or installation of technologies), or as
operations and maintenance (O&M) costs (costs that occur on a regular
ongoing basis such as monitoring or annual purchases of deicing
materials). EPA amortized these capital costs over the lifespan of the
capital improvement. For additional information on amortization, see
the EA. Finally, EPA combined the amortized capital costs with the
annual O&M costs to calculate the total annual cost of the option for
that model facility.
EPA then utilized statistical weights assigned to each of the 149
model facilities to calculate a national estimated cost of complying
with the option. Further discussion of all of the calculations
discussed can be found in the TDD and in the EA.
B. Approach to Estimating Pollutant Reductions
1. Overview
The pollutants of concern associated with airfield and aircraft
deicing and anti-icing chemicals are discussed in Section 6 of the TDD.
These chemicals commingle with stormwater and may be discharged to the
environment. These discharges are of environmental concern because the
biodegradation of deicing chemicals results in oxygen depletion in the
receiving water body. Moreover, some of these pollutants, such as
ammonia, have toxic properties.
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 airport 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 airport.
Due to the variable nature of these pollutant loads, EPA developed
a baseline (or current) pollutant loading methodology based on the
usage of ADF and airfield chemicals at the airports responding to the
survey questionnaires. The methodology takes into account EPA's
existing data sources and provides a better estimate of the loadings
than those based on sporadic monitoring data alone. Similar to the
costing methodology, EPA developed facility-specific baseline loads for
a subset of the industry (i.e., model facilities). For those model
airports where existing practices would not lead to compliance with
today's options, EPA then calculated the incremental pollutant removals
associated with compliance. EPA subsequently adjusted the incremental
pollutant removals upward to estimate the entire affected airport
population. This approach is the same as the approach taken in the
proposal.
2. Sources and Use of Available Data
While developing the pollutant loading models, EPA considered the
following data sources:
Pavement deicing chemical usage/purchase information for
the 2002/2003, 2003/2004, and 2004/2005 deicing seasons, as reported by
airport authorities in the Airport Deicing Questionnaire.
ADF purchase information for the 2002/2003, 2003/2004, and
2004/2005 deicing seasons, as reported by air carriers in the Airline
Deicing Questionnaire.
Standard airport information available from the FAA and
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, including the number of
operations and departures by airport,
Weather information for each airport from NOAA, including
temperature, freezing precipitation, and snowfall data.
Existing airport stormwater collection and containment
systems, as reported by airport authorities in the Airport Deicing
Questionnaire.
Standard chemical information about ADF and pavement
deicing chemicals, including molecular formulas and densities.
Analytical data from EPA sampling episodes of airport
deicing operations.
a. Baseline Loading Calculations
The Agency estimated the total amount of pavement deicing chemicals
and ADF used based on data collected in the Airport and Airline
Questionnaires. The Airport Questionnaire respondents reported the
purchase/usage amount, concentration, and brand name of pavement
deicing materials. Using the Airline Questionnaire, EPA collected ADF
purchase data from airlines with 1,000 or more departures operating at
selected airports. During questionnaire development, airports indicated
they did not have information on ADF usage and that EPA should direct
this question to airlines. Purchase data were collected because the
airlines stated that purchase data were most readily available, while
usage data was not. For the purposes of these loading calculations, EPA
estimated that the annual amount purchased was equal to the amount used
for a deicing season. For instances in which EPA did not have ADF
purchase data for every airline operating at a particular model
airport, EPA extrapolated the amount of ADF used by the reporting
airlines to estimate the total amount of ADF used by the entire
airport. This was done based on the number of airport operations
(departures) at the reporting airlines versus the total number of
airport operations. In addition to the 56 airports for which EPA
collected ADF purchase/usage data from the airline tenants, 10 airports
reported the total volume of their ADF usage to EPA in their comment
section of the Airport Deicing Questionnaire, resulting in estimates of
total ADF usage for 66 model airports.
Using the airline and airport ADF purchase and usage data obtained
from the questionnaire, airport departure data, and climate data, EPA
developed a relationship between the amount of ADF used, and the
climate and size of each model airport. EPA then used this equation to
estimate the total gallons of ADF used at model airports that did not
have ADF usage data in the Airport or Airline Questionnaires. EPA is
aware that part of the methodology for developing today's regulation
involved estimating airport-specific ADF usage. However, in order to
prevent mandatory survey responses marked as CBI from being released,
EPA is not revealing the exact methodology for modeling this ADF usage
due to the potential for the deduction of CBI data through back
calculation.
Once the amount of ADF used at each model airport had been
determined, EPA needed to determine the amount of ADF available for
direct discharge to the waters. EPA assumed that 75 percent of applied
Type I ADF falls onto the pavement at the deicing area and is available
for discharge. EPA assumed that 10 percent of Type IV ADF falls to the
pavement in the deicing area and is available for discharge; the
remaining 90 percent adheres to the plane. See the TDD for more
information on these estimates. EPA then multiplied the total amount of
applied ADF for each model airport by the appropriate percent available
for discharge to determine the amount of ADF available for discharge.
Note that collection requirements in the options are specified as
percentages of ADF available for discharge, not percentages of total
ADF applied. Evaluating the amount of ADF available for discharge,
coupled with the estimated baseline collection rate, results in the
total amount of discharged
[[Page 29184]]
available ADF. EPA then calculated the amount of COD loading associated
with these discharges, described as follows.
Airfield pavement deicing chemicals are applied at various airside
locations such as runways, taxiways and ramps. Theoretically, the
amount of pavement deicers being discharged could range from
approximately 0 percent, for chemicals that infiltrate highly permeable
soils in unpaved areas during a thaw, to virtually 100 percent for
paved areas near storm drains. In general, soil in unpaved areas is
frozen during deicing season and is impermeable, promoting the overland
flow of stormwater and pollutants to surface waters. Estimating the
amount or proportion of pavement deicers discharged at a particular
airport is difficult without performing a detailed study at the
airport. EPA has not received any such detailed studies, nor other
information from airports indicating that pavement deicers are absorbed
into soil during the deicing season. Therefore, the Agency assumed for
this rulemaking that 100 percent of the pavement deicers used could be
discharged to surface waters.\3\ This means the estimates of baseline
pollutant loadings and removals associated with pavement de-icing are
upper bound estimates. EPA then calculated the amount of COD loading
associated with airfield chemical use and discharge as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ As a point of clarification, in contrast to the NSPS
requirements for aircraft deicing where an airport is only required
to meet the standards for a portion of the applied deicing chemical,
this means that an airport that elects to comply with today's BAT or
NSPS requirements by meeting the ammonia limitation must meet this
limitation for all airfield deicer that is discharged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the COD loading associated with either ADF or airfield
chemical discharge, EPA determined the theoretical oxygen demand (ThOD)
associated with the degradation of each of the deicing chemicals. EPA
based the ThOD estimate on the molecular formula of the chemical and
the stoichiometric equation of the breakdown of the chemical to the end
products of CO2 and water. EPA assumed that the chemical
would completely degrade in the environment over time and, therefore,
the calculated ThOD load would be equivalent to the COD load. EPA
estimated the COD load associated with each reported chemical based on
the calculated mass of the chemical discharged, the molecular weight of
the chemical, the ThOD, and the molecular weight of oxygen. EPA
estimated the ammonia load associated with deicers containing urea
based on the chemical equation for the breakdown of urea to ammonia,
the mass of urea use, and the molecular weights of urea and ammonia.
See Section 9 of the TDD for more information and example calculations
of baseline loadings associated with ADF and airfield deicers.
b. Calculation of Pollutant Removals
After determining baseline loadings, EPA calculated total
reductions of COD and ammonia associated with a national implementation
of today's options.
i. Aircraft Deicing Related Pollutant Removals
EPA estimated the amounts of COD that would be reduced by Option 1
and 2, by estimating the existing baseline loadings associated with
aircraft deicing at model airports and comparing that to the COD load
that would be discharged after complying with the option (e.g., for
Option 1, COD load discharged if 40 percent of available ADF were
collected and treated to meet the required discharge limitation). If a
particular airport would be subject to a collection requirement of 40
percent under this option and is currently estimated to collect a
greater proportion of available ADF, then no load removals were
estimated for that airport.
ii. Airfield Deicing Related Pollutant Removals
EPA calculated ammonia and COD baseline loads for those model
facilities using deicers containing urea. The Agency then calculated
ammonia and COD loads for those same model facilities if they replaced
their deicers containing urea with the substitute product, potassium
acetate (which does not form ammonia and exerts a lower COD than urea).
EPA computed the total load reduction by subtracting the ammonia and
COD loadings between the baseline and the regulatory compliance
conditions.
iii. National Extrapolation
These calculated loading reductions, summed for both airfield and
aircraft deicing chemicals, as applicable, were then extrapolated by
multiplying the pollutant removals for each model facility by the
airport survey weighting factors to determine national loads for the
entire industry for each regulatory option considered for today's rule.
C. Approach to Determining Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors, and
Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards
This section describes the statistical methodology used to develop
the daily maximum and the maximum for weekly average NSPS representing
the BADCT levels of control for COD. EPA also used the same statistical
methodology to develop the daily maximum limitation/standard for
ammonia that is a compliance alternative when deicers containing urea
are applied to runways. The following discussion uses the term
``limitation'' to collectively refer to effluent limitations guidelines
and NSPS.
The following sections describe the data selection criteria, the
statistical percentile basis of the effluent limitations, rationales
for certain limitations, the calculations, the recommended long-term
average value for treatment operations, and the engineering evaluation
of the model technology's ability to achieve the levels required by the
limitations.
1. Criteria Used To Select Data as the Basis of the Limitations
Typically, in developing effluent limitations for any industry, EPA
qualitatively reviews all the data before selecting the appropriate
data to use for calculating the limitations. EPA typically uses four
criteria to assess the data. One criterion generally requires that the
influent and effluent represent only wastewater from the regulated
operations (e.g., deicing), and do not include wastewater from other
sources (e.g., sanitary wastes). A second criterion typically ensures
that the pollutants were present in the influent at sufficient
concentrations to evaluate treatment effectiveness. A third criterion
generally requires that the facility must have the technology and
demonstrate proper operation of the technology. A fourth criterion
typically requires that the data cannot represent periods of treatment
upsets or shutdown and start-up periods. Shutdown periods can result
from upset conditions, maintenance, and other atypical operations.
EPA has adapted the application of the fourth general criterion for
data corresponding to start-up periods to reflect some unique
characteristics of treating discharges from aircraft deicing
operations. Most industries incur start-up conditions only during the
adjustment period associated with installing new treatment systems.
During this acclimation and optimization process, the concentration
values tend to be highly variable with occasional extreme values (high
and low). After this initial adjustment period, the systems should
operate at steady state for years with relatively low variability
around a long-term average. Because start-up conditions reflect one-
time operating conditions, EPA
[[Page 29185]]
generally excludes such data in developing the limitations. In
contrast, EPA expects airports to encounter start-up operations at the
beginning 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 has
included start-up data in the data set used as the basis of the
limitations. However, through its application of the other three
criteria, EPA excluded extreme conditions that do not demonstrate the
level of control possible with proper operation and control even during
start-up periods. For detailed information on these exclusions, see
Section 14 of the TDD.
In part, by retaining start-up data for the limitation's
development, the limitations will be achievable because EPA based these
limits on typical treatment during the entire season. As a point of
clarification, once acclimated, EPA expects a typically well-designed
and operated system for the collected deicing fluid to run continuously
until the end of the deicing season, as facilities utilize storage/
equalization prior to the AFB to manage a steady flow rate.
2. Data Used as Basis of the Effluent Limitations
As explained in Section 8 of the TDD, the technology basis for the
COD numerical limitations associated with discharges of collected ADF
wastewater is AFB biological treatment. Of the effluent data available
to EPA, 2,562 concentration values for COD met the requirements in the
criteria described above and are the basis of the COD final NSPS. The
concentration values are measurements of filtered effluent collected
from Albany Airport's two-unit anaerobic treatment system. The 2,562
COD values were collected by the airport during its daily monitoring of
COD over ten deicing seasons (December 1, 1999 through April 10, 2009).
Product substitution is the basis for 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 stormwater; 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
utilized 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 that 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. 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).
3. Statistical Percentile Basis for Limitations
EPA uses a statistical framework to establish limitations that
well-operated facilities are capable of complying with at all times.
According to EPA, well-operated facilities are those that represent the
BAT/BADCT level of control. Statistical methods are appropriate for
dealing with effluent data because the quality of effluent, even in
well-operated systems, is subject to a certain amount of variability or
uncertainty. Statistics is the science of dealing with uncertainty in a
logical and consistent manner. Statistical methods, together with
engineering analysis of operating conditions, therefore, provide a
logical and consistent framework for analyzing a set of effluent data
and determining values from the data that form a reasonable basis for
effluent limitations. Using statistical methods, EPA has derived
numerical values for its daily maximum limitations and weekly average
limitations.
The statistical percentiles upon which the limitations are based
are intended to be high enough to accommodate reasonably anticipated
variability within control of the facility. The limitations also
reflect a level of performance consistent with the CWA requirement that
these limitations be based on the best available technologies (or BADCT
for new sources), including proper operation and maintenance of these
technologies.
In establishing daily maximum limitations, EPA's objective is to
restrict the discharges on a daily basis at a level that is achievable
for an airport that targets its treatment system design and operation
at the long-term average while allowing for the variability around the
long-term average that results from a well-operated system. This
variability means that at certain times airports may discharge at a
level that is greater than the long-term average. This variability also
means that airports may at other times discharge at a level that is
lower than the long-term average. To allow for possibly higher daily
discharges, EPA has established the daily maximum limitation at a
relatively high level (i.e., the 99th percentile). EPA has consistently
used the 99th percentile as the basis of the daily maximum limitation
in establishing limitations for numerous industries for many years;
numerous courts have upheld EPA's approach. EPA typically establishes
limitations based upon statistical percentile estimates and has done so
for the weekly average limitation in today's final rule. In its
derivation of the weekly average NSPS for COD, EPA used an estimate of
the 97th percentile of the weekly averages of the daily measurements.
This percentile basis is the midpoint of the percentiles used for the
daily maximum limitation (i.e., 99th percentile of the distribution of
daily values) and the monthly average limitation (i.e., 95th percentile
of the distribution of monthly average values). Courts have upheld
EPA's use of these percentiles, and the selection of the 97th
percentile of a weekly average of the daily measurements is a logical
extension of this practice. Compliance with the daily maximum
limitation is determined by a single daily value; therefore, EPA
considers the 99th percentile to provide a reasonable basis for the
daily maximum limitation by providing an allowance for an occasional
extreme discharge. Because compliance with the monthly average
limitation is based upon more than one daily measurement and averages
are less variable than daily discharges, EPA has determined that
facilities should be capable of controlling the average of daily
discharges to avoid extreme monthly averages above the 95th percentile.
In a similar manner to the monthly average limitation, compliance with
the weekly average limitation also would be based upon more than one
daily measurement. However, the airport would monitor for a shorter
time and thus would have fewer opportunities to counterbalance highly
concentrated daily discharges with lower ones. Consequently, EPA has
determined that the 97th percentile is an appropriate basis for
limiting average discharges on a weekly basis. EPA considers the use of
the 97th percentile for the weekly average limitation a level
[[Page 29186]]
that is achievable for airports using the model technology. EPA also
considers this level of control in avoiding extreme weekly average
discharges to be possible for airports using the model technology.
4. Rationale for Establishing Limitation on Weekly Averages Instead of
Monthly Averages for COD in Effluent Discharges
From a monitoring perspective, EPA considers the weekly average
standard to be a better fit than the monthly average standards for the
deicing discharges. In this situation, the weekly average standard
would apply to every week that the treatment system operates during the
deicing season. A weekly average standard preserves EPA's intention for
an additional restriction beyond the daily maximum standard that
supports its objective of having airports control their average
discharges at the long-term average level.
When EPA establishes monthly average standards, EPA's objective is
to provide an additional restriction to help ensure that facilities
target their treatment systems to achieve the long-term average. The
monthly average standard requires facilities to provide ongoing control
that complements controls imposed by the daily maximum standard. To
meet the monthly average standard, a facility must counterbalance a
value near the daily maximum standard with one or more values well
below the daily maximum standard. To achieve compliance, these values
must result in a monthly average value at or below the monthly average
standard.
The deicing season is unlikely to start at the beginning of a
calendar month and close exactly at the end of a calendar month. This
means that the facility would be monitoring at a reduced frequency
during those two months. Increasing or decreasing monitoring frequency
does not affect the statistical properties of the underlying
distribution of the data used to derive the standard. However,
monitoring less frequently theoretically results in average values that
are more variable. For example, monthly average values based on 10
monitoring samples per month would be (statistically) expected to
include some averages that are numerically larger (as well as some that
are numerically smaller) than monthly average values based upon 20
monitoring samples. Because of this reduced monitoring, an airport
might have trouble in complying with the monthly average standard even
with an otherwise well-operated and controlled system. In other words,
because it was not monitoring as frequently, the airport would have
fewer opportunities to counterbalance high concentrations with lower
values.
5. Rationale for Promulgating a Limitation Only for Daily Discharges of
Ammonia in Effluent Discharges
Unlike the COD limitations, EPA believes that it is appropriate to
rely only on a daily maximum limitation to ensure that airports
appropriately control ammonia levels. As explained above, the
technology basis for the COD effluent standards is a well operated and
controlled AFB system whereas the technology basis for the ammonia
limitation is product substitution. It is well documented that during
start up, biological treatment systems, such as AFB, may require
several days to acclimate the microorganisms. Once acclimated, well-
operated and controlled AFB systems operate continuously (typically by
managing a steady flow from their equalization tank). If the system
only operated during storm events, it would have difficulties
stabilizing and achieving the performance levels necessary to comply
with the COD standards.
In contrast, with product substitution, the operator could consider
the conditions associated with each storm event, and then decide
whether to use urea. If the operator chose to use urea rather than
product substitution, the operator would have to determine its approach
for meeting the ammonia limitation. Anaerobic systems, such as AFB
systems, would not be a good candidate because they generate, rather
than treat, ammonia. However, depending on a specific airport's
drainage system, a portion of airfield deicing stormwater may be routed
to the treatment system utilized in treating the collected ADF. For
this reason, by using the ammonia data from the AFB system which was
preceded by product substitution for urea, EPA created an allowance for
such situations. Because the choice to use urea or product substitution
can vary on a daily basis, EPA has established only the daily maximum
limitation for ammonia. Additionally, EPA expects airports to select
product substitution (i.e., non-urea deicers) rather than the
compliance alternative that requires collection and treatment of runway
deicing contaminated stormwater. Thus, it is possible that no airports
will be subject to any limitation on ammonia discharges.
6. Calculation of Limitations for COD and Ammonia
For COD, EPA used nonparametric statistical methods to estimate the
percentiles used as the basis of the daily maximum and weekly average
standards. A simple nonparametric estimate of a particular percentile
(e.g., 99th) of an effluent concentration data set is the observed
value that exceeds that percent (e.g., 99 percent) of the observed data
points.
For the daily maximum standard for COD, EPA used the nonparametric
method to derive a 99th percentile of the more than 1,200 daily
measurements for each unit, and then set the standard equal to the
median of the two 99th percentile estimates, or 271 milligrams per
liter (mg/L). The median is, by definition, the midpoint of all
available data values ordered (i.e., ranked) from smallest to largest.
In this particular case, because there are two units, the median is
equal to the arithmetic average (or mean).
For the weekly average standard of COD, EPA first calculated, for
each unit, the arithmetic average of the measurements observed during
each week, excluding weekends. EPA then used the nonparametric method
to derive a 97th percentile of the more than 200 weekly averages for
each unit, and set the standard equal to the median of the two 97th
percentile estimates, or 154 mg/L.
For ammonia, EPA used a parametric approach in estimating the 99th
percentile based upon the data collected during EPA's five-day sampling
episode. The calculations assume the ammonia concentrations can be
modeled by a lognormal distribution. EPA's selection of parametric
methods, such as a model based on the lognormal distribution, used in
developing limitations for other industries is well documented (e.g.,
Iron and Steel [40 CFR part 420], Pulp, Paper and Paperboard [40 CFR
part 430], and Metal Products and Machinery [40 CFR part 438]
categories). Variance estimates based upon parametric methods can be
adjusted for possible biases in the data. The limitation of 14.7 mg/L
includes such an adjustment for possible bias from positive
autocorrelation. When data are positively autocorrelated, it means that
measurements taken close together in time (such as one or two days
apart) are more similar than measurements taken further apart in time,
such as a week or month apart. The adjusted variance then better
reflects the underlying variability that would be present if the data
were collected over a longer period.
7. Derivation of Long-Term Average for COD and Ammonia: Target Level
for Treatment
Due to routine variability in treated effluent, an airport that
discharges consistently at a level near the values of
[[Page 29187]]
the daily maximum standard or the weekly average standard, instead of
the long-term average, may experience frequent values exceeding the
standards. For this reason and as noted previously in this section, EPA
recommends that airports design and operate the treatment system to
achieve the long-term average for the model technology. Thus, a system
that is designed to represent the BADCT level of control will be
capable of complying with the promulgated standards.
For COD, EPA recommends that airports target treatment systems to
achieve the long-term average value of 52.8 mg/L, which is the median
of the two averages, of 52.28 mg/L and 53.40 mg/L, of the daily values
from the two units. The daily allowance for variability, or the ratio
of the standard to the long-term average, is 5.13. EPA usually refers
to this allowance as the ``variability factor.'' In other words, the
daily maximum standard of 271 mg/L is about five times greater than the
long-term average achievable by the model technology. The weekly
variability factor is 2.92.
For ammonia, EPA derived its recommended long-term average value of
5.24 mg/L from the statistical expected value of the lognormal
distribution. The daily maximum limitation of 14.7 mg/L is about three
times greater than the long-term average, of 5.24 mg/L, achievable by
the ADF treatment model technology. Ammonia is generated as a byproduct
of the model technology, and EPA expects the concentrations of ammonia
to have similar variability to what is being treated (i.e., COD).
8. Engineering Review of Effluent Limitations
In conjunction with the statistical methods, EPA performs an
engineering review to verify that the limitations are reasonable based
upon the design and expected operation of the control technologies and
the facility conditions. During the site visit and sampling trip at the
Albany treatment plant, EPA confirmed that the airport used the model
technologies, specifically AFB. EPA subsequently contacted the plant
personnel to obtain more information about the installation and
operation of the model technologies. EPA used this engineering
information to select the subset of data from which to develop the
effluent limitations.
As part of this engineering review, EPA concluded that the values
of the limitations were consistent with the levels that are achievable
by the model technologies. Next, EPA compared the value of the effluent
limitations to the data values used to calculate the limitations. None
of the data selected for ammonia were greater than its daily maximum
limitation, which supports the engineering and statistical conclusions
that the limitation value is appropriate. Because of the statistical
methodology used for the COD standards (i.e., use of percentiles), some
values were appropriately greater than the standards. See Section
VI.C.3. Even though EPA would expect this statistically, EPA looked at
the values that exceed the standards from an engineering perspective.
EPA wanted to ensure there were no underlying conditions contributing
to such exceedances. In particular, EPA looked at deicing season,
influent concentrations, and start-up operations. In evaluating the
impact of the deicing seasons, EPA concluded that the higher values did
not seem to be predominant in any one season. In particular, the higher
values occurred one to seven times in each of eight seasons. In
evaluating influent concentrations, EPA found that influent
concentrations were generally well controlled into the treatment plant.
In general, the treatment system adequately treated even the extreme
influent values, and the high effluent values did not appear to be the
result of high influent discharges. In considering start-up operations,
EPA noted that the higher values occurred in every month from December
through May, except in April, and, thus, the standards appear to
provide adequate allowance for start-up operations.
VII. Economic Analysis
A. Introduction
EPA's EA assesses the costs and impacts of the regulatory options
considered today on the regulated industry. This section explains EPA's
methodology and the results of its EA. With one exception, all costs,
airport counts and other results in this section are presented using
sample weights to expand results from the surveyed airports to
represent the entire population of airports potentially affected by the
rule. The single exception, the results of the debt service coverage
analysis, is clearly marked as ``unweighted.'' In addition, all cost
figures are presented in 2006 dollars.
B. Annualized Compliance Cost Estimates
EPA considered three regulatory options for today's final rule.
Under all of these options, airports subject to BAT or NSPS would have
requirements with respect to airfield deicing stormwater (certify no
use of airfield deicing products that contain urea, or airfield
pavement discharges must achieve a numeric limit for ammonia). EPA
estimates that 198 existing airports--those that perform deicing
operations with at least 1,000 annual non-propeller aircraft
departures--are subject to the airfield deicing requirements.\4\ In
addition, for two of the options, a subset of those airports--airports
with annual normalized ADF usage equal to or exceeding 60,000 gallons
per year (55 airports)--would also need to meet requirements related to
wastewater from aircraft deicing (ADF collection and COD discharge
limitations). The regulatory options that EPA considered differ in the
level of ADF collection required for aircraft deicing at existing
airports. Option 1 would require 40 percent collection and treatment
for all airports with at least 60,000 gallons of annual normalized ADF
usage. Option 2 would set a two-tier requirement: 20 percent collection
and treatment for airports with at least 60,000, but less than 460,000
gallons of annual normalized ADF usage, and 40 percent collection and
treatment for airports with at least 460,000 gallons of annual ADF
usage. Under Option 3, aircraft deicing discharge BAT limitations would
continue to be established by the permitting authority on a case-by-
case basis. Under all three options, new airports with at least 10,000
annual departures and located in an area with at least 3000 HDDs would
also have to collect 60% of ADF available for discharge and store and
treat this effluent to meet a COD effluent limit. For both new and
existing airports with deicing discharges that do not meet the NSPS
airfield or aircraft pavement applicability requirements, limitations
would continue to be set by the permitting authority on a case-by-case
basis using BPJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Because many airports do not meet the applicability
criteria, EPA estimates that approximately 184 primary airports, 135
non-primary airports, and almost 3,000 general aviation airports are
not required to meet the BAT effluent limitations guidelines and
NSPS, but rather would be subject to site-specific BAT and NSPS
requirements set on a best professional judgment basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA selected Option 3 for promulgation in this final rule. EPA
estimates the technologies identified in this notice to comply with the
BAT limitations will cost existing airports $3.5 million annually. EPA
has not estimated the cost for compliance with the NSPS, but separately
discusses the potential for the NSPS to pose a barrier entry in section
VII.E below.
[[Page 29188]]
In estimating costs associated with Option 1 and Option 2, EPA
projects the effective service life of GCVs and block-and-pump
technologies to be 10 years; all other components necessary to meet the
options have an effective service life of 20 years. Therefore, EPA
selected a 20-year analytic period and incorporated replacement capital
expenditures in year 10, in addition to the initial capital
expenditure. For example, EPA estimated total capital costs to include
all initial and replacement capital expenditures for GCV and plug-and-
pump for Option 1. However, because the replacement capital
expenditures occur 10 years after promulgation, the discounted present
value (PV) of those expenditures is less than their current value.
EPA uses 3 percent and 7 percent interest rates for two purposes.
First, the interest rates are used to discount future capital
replacement costs required when the 20-year analytic period exceeds the
effective service life of a technology. Second, the interest rates
represent the opportunity cost of capital to industry, and, thus,
essentially the interest rate the industry may be charged if the
industry borrows money.
EPA discounted and annualized the stream of capital costs projected
to be incurred by industry over 20 years using two different discount
rates, 3 percent and 7 percent, in accordance with EPA and OMB guidance
(``Economic Analysis of Federal Regulations under Executive Order
12866,'' January 11, 1996). The PV of capital costs under the final
rule over the 20-year analytic period is $6.02 million based on the
discount rate of 3 percent, and $5.27 million using the 7 percent rate.
The annual cost of operating and maintaining the technologies
identified as BAT for deicing for this final rule is estimated at $3.04
million. Adding this O&M cost to the annualized capital costs, the rule
has aggregate national costs of $3.43 million per year using a 3
percent discount rate and annualized costs to industry of $3.5 million
using a 7 percent rate (in 2006 dollars). Table VII-1 presents
projected costs for the final rule, as well as the other option
examined.
Table VII-1--Costs to Existing Airports That Deice Aircraft and Airfield Pavement
[2006 $million--198 airports (weighted)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Total capital Present value Annualized Annual O&M annualized
Option costs of capital capital costs costs compliance
costs costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent Real Discount Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... $319.9 $309.0 $20.2 $52.0 $72.1
2............................... 250.3 243.7 15.9 28.4 44.3
3 \a\........................... 6.83 6.02 0.39 3.04 3.43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Percent Real Discount Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 319.9 299.0 26.4 52.0 78.4
2............................... 250.3 237.6 21.0 28.4 49.4
3 \a\........................... 6.83 5.27 0.46 3.04 3.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Selected option.
C. Economic Impact Methodologies
For the purposes of the economic impact analysis, the
distinguishing feature of airports that makes the analysis different
from more traditional analyses EPA would perform for a for-profit
manufacturing industry, is that 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 quasi-governmental entities, 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 the airlines that use the airport legally
required to cover expenditures in excess of budgeted costs.
Airlines may also be impacted by today's rulemaking. In the vast
majority of cases, airlines are not directly subject to today's
requirements. In such cases, impacts to airlines are considered
secondary impacts. Historically, EPA determines economic achievability
based on primary or direct impacts only (i.e., impacts to NPDES permit
holders directly subject to ELG requirements) and does not evaluate
secondary impacts. At the time of the proposal, EPA elected to evaluate
secondary impacts to airlines because of the unique contractual
relationship between airports and airlines, because airlines are the
entities that use ADF, and because airlines are occasionally co-
permittees (but never the principal permittee) at an airport.
In a revision from the proposal and consistent with past effluent
guideline economic achievability analyses, for today's final rule, EPA
determined economic achievability based on primary or direct impacts
only. EPA returned to its historical approach of evaluating economic
achievability based on only primary impacts (here, impacts on airports
and airline co-permittees) for today's final rule because the Agency
concluded that ultimately these entities will be responsible for
incurring the costs and associated impact of any additional regulation.
In the analyses described below, EPA first evaluates the economic
achievability of the options assuming all costs are borne by airports,
and the summaries of impacts to airports are based on that assumption.
EPA also presents an analysis that shares compliance costs between
affected airports and their co-permittee airlines, as applicable.
Therefore, impacts to co-permittee airlines presented as follows are
not in addition to the impacts to airports. To the extent that airports
share costs with co-permittee airlines according to EPA assumptions,
the costs and impacts to airports are reduced. This analysis is
described in detail in the rulemaking record DCN AD01280. The following
text describes the methodology and the results EPA used to evaluate
economic impact associated with the three regulatory options considered
for today's final rule, both under the assumption that airports incur
100 percent of compliance costs, and
[[Page 29189]]
the assumption that airports share compliance costs with co-permittee
airlines.
1. Cost Annualization
Cost annualization is the first step in projecting the economic and
financial impacts of the regulatory options rule. EPA projected the
capital and operating and maintenance costs of the three regulatory
options for each airport, then annualized those costs over 20 years.
The method for estimating each airport's capital and operating costs is
described in Section VI.A.
EPA used airport-specific interest rates based on recent General
Airport Revenue Bonds (GARBs) issued to annualize compliance costs for
the proposed rule. Based on public comments arguing that EPA
underestimated the cost of capital to airports, EPA used a higher real
interest rate of 7 percent to annualize airport capital costs for the
final rule. However, EPA believes many airports will issue tax-exempt
GARBs to fund capital expenditures. To the extent that airports use
GARBs, the use of GARBs will lower the cost of capital, and reduce
impacts to the financial health of the airports. EPA does not assume
that airports will be able to fund capital expenditures using Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) grants or Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs)
because such funds are likely to already be committed to airport
projects into the foreseeable future. However, to the extent that
airports might use AIP or PFC funds for capital expenditures associated
with this rule, it will also lower the cost of capital, and reduce
impacts to the financial health of the airports relative to what EPA
has projected in its analysis.
2. Airport Impact Methodology
Because all in-scope airports are nonprofit government or quasi-
government entities (e.g., port authorities), the effect of an effluent
guideline on airport income statements and balance sheets is not best
measured by a traditional closure analysis. Therefore, EPA chose to
examine the financial impacts of the regulatory options using two
measures. First, EPA compared total annualized compliance costs with
airport revenues. Second, because many airports fund capital
expenditures using debt financing, EPA examined the impact of
additional debt on each airport's debt service coverage ratio (DSCR).
a. Revenue Test
EPA's ``Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses'' (2010)
recommends the ``revenue test'' as a measure for impacts of programs
that directly affect government and not-for-profit entities. EPA finds
that the revenue test is appropriate in this case. The revenue test
compares the total annualized compliance costs of each regulatory
option with the revenues of the governmental entities. Although the
current Guidelines do not specify the use of one and three percent for
the revenue test, EPA's 2000 Guidelines did specify that use, and the
Agency's analysis for the proposed rule followed that guidance; EPA
applied the same test here.
The 2000 Guidelines suggest evaluating the affordability of a
regulatory option as follows:
If total annualized compliance costs are less than 1
percent of revenues, the option is generally considered affordable for
the entity.
If total annualized compliance costs are greater than 3
percent of revenues, the option is generally considered not affordable
for the entity.
EPA used operating revenue as reported on Form 127 of the FAA's
Airport Financial Reporting Program as the denominator for the revenue
test ratio, and total annualized compliance costs as described under
Cost Annualization as the numerator for the ratio.
Industry commenters on the proposed rule objected that the revenue
test is too simplistic. EPA disagrees, and moreover, industry
commenters were unable to provide any alternative test that would more
accurately project economic impacts on the industry. Some industry
commenters suggested that EPA examine different, more narrowly defined
ratios, such as the ratio of compliance costs to aeronautical revenues,
or the incremental cost per enplaned passenger. EPA did not choose to
replace the revenue test with one of these variants because EPA
determined that total operating revenues are the appropriate
denominator for the test; the sole purpose of the airport is to support
air transportation services. Landside revenues raised through parking,
retail, and food concessions, for example, are not designed to provide
a revenue stream to support the provision of a different service or
product, but to allow airports to accumulate revenue from non-airline
sources. 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 its implementation of
these effluent limitation guidelines. Furthermore, industry commenters
offered no suggestions for alternative thresholds for finding airport
impacts, and, in fact, acknowledged that such thresholds do not exist
in the case of their recommended incremental cost per enplaned
passenger test. EPA did, however, perform several of these alternative
tests as sensitivity analyses and determined that the resulting
projections of economic impacts to the industry did not differ
qualitatively from those under the revenue test analysis.
b. Debt Service Coverage Ratio
When creating quasi-governmental agencies such as port authorities,
the legislation that created the agency typically includes a lower
limit on the authority's DSCR. Airports owned and operated directly by
a state or local government might also have direct limits on airport
debt (if the airport has authority independent of the city or county
government to incur debt). The authority will be in default on its debt
if the DSCR falls below the relevant benchmark. A review of
Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for affected airports shows that
generally the ratio of net revenues to debt service for any given year
cannot fall below 1.25. Therefore, EPA estimated the impact debt
financing will have on the post-regulatory DSCR for each airport
incurring capital expenditures under each regulatory option.
Using the Airport Questionnaire responses, EPA collected each
airport's current DSCR, and the net revenues and debt service used to
calculate that ratio. For airports that belonged to multi-airport
systems under the same ownership, DSCR was reported at the level of the
entire system. Therefore, for each regulatory option, EPA aggregated
compliance costs for all affected airports in the system, and performed
a single calculation for the post-regulatory DSCR.
Some evidence suggests airports will pass on less than 100 percent
of costs, at least in the short run, if there is concern an airline
might withdraw service if the airport increases fees too much. This
might occur if the airport has nearby competitors, or if airline
finances are fragile. EPA wanted to determine if an airport would be in
danger of default on its debt even if it was unable to pass through
compliance costs to its airline customers. Thus, the Agency calculated
post-regulatory DSCR in two ways: (1) Assuming costs are passed through
to airlines in the form of higher landing fees, and (2) assuming no
costs are passed through.
In the baseline, the DSCR is calculated by dividing airport net
revenues by airport debt service. Assuming 100 percent cost pass-
through
[[Page 29190]]
from airports to airlines, EPA estimated the post-regulatory DSCR of
each regulatory option by: (1) Assuming zero change in airport net
revenues in the numerator (more precisely, EPA assumes that annual
increase in landing fees are exactly equal to incremental annual
deicing costs, thus leaving net revenues unchanged), and (2) adding the
annualized value of capital compliance costs to debt service in the
denominator. The DSCR decreases even when assuming 100 percent cost
pass-through; although the value of the numerator is unchanged, the
denominator increases by the amount equal to annualized capital cost,
decreasing the value of the ratio.
Assuming no cost pass-through from airports to airlines, EPA
estimated the post-regulatory DSCR by for each regulatory option by:
(1) Subtracting incremental annual deicing operating and maintenance
costs from pre-regulatory airport net revenues in the numerator, and
(2) adding the annualized value of capital compliance costs to debt
service in the denominator. With zero cost pass-through, the numerator
in the ratio decreases because incremental O&M costs are subtracted
from existing revenues, while the denominator increases because
incremental debt service is added to existing debt service; thus, the
DSCR clearly falls.
All additional analyses, their methodologies, justifications, and
results, are presented in the Economic Analysis (EA).
3. Co-Permittee Airline Impact Methodology
In response to public comment, EPA examined potential economic
impacts to airlines that are directly subject to today's final
regulation: those that are co-permittees on NPDES permits. EPA
conducted analyses of impacts to airlines that are co-permittees at
certain airports, under the assumption that co-permittee airlines would
directly pay a share of the airport's compliance costs. EPA identified
airline co-permittees through EPA's Airport Deicing Questionnaire,
where airports had been asked to identify all co-permittees. While the
questionnaire responses identified co-permittees, they did not provide
any data or insight into how permit-related compliance costs are
currently distributed to, and among, co-permittees, if at all. Although
the general outlines of standard contractual relations between airports
and airlines can be characterized (see section 2.8 of the EA), the
inclusion of an airline on the airport's NPDES permit is not a common
practice. In addition to reviewing information supplied in the
questionnaires, EPA searched publicly available information, reviewed
comment responses, and inquired of airline representatives on such
relationships. Industry representatives did not provide EPA with
information on these contractual relationships in the questionnaires or
their comments on the proposed rule, nor did they provide this
information to the Agency in pre-proposal meetings that were arranged
to discuss the economic methodology of the rule. EPA was unable to
gather any specific insight into these relationships or the
distribution of compliance costs among the principal NPDES permit
holder and its co-permittees. Thus, for purposes of this analysis, EPA
assumed compliance costs would be distributed equally among the
principal permittee (i.e., airport) and its co-permittee airlines. EPA
recognizes that some individual airports may incur a higher percentage
of the compliance costs relative to their co-permittees and others may
incur a lower percentage. However, for purposes of a national analysis,
and with a lack of informative data, EPA finds a 50 percent
distribution assumption to be reasonable.
EPA does not separately assign capital costs to airlines and
annualize those costs using airline-specific costs of capital; it seems
more likely that with responsibility for the physical site, the airport
would take the lead and have those costs reimbursed by the co-
permittees. Thus, EPA assigned 50 percent of the total annualized
compliance costs collectively to the co-permittee airlines. For each
model airport with co-permittees, EPA needed to determine how to
apportion the co-permittee portion of the compliance costs to the
individual co-permittees. As explained in previous text, EPA does not
have data to determine if co-permittees currently incur any permit
compliance-related costs, nor, if they do incur those costs, how they
are distributed among co-permittees at individual airport locations. In
the absence of specific information, EPA chose to attribute airport-
specific compliance costs to each co-permittee based on its share of
total landed weight at the airport. EPA chose this method because ADF
usage should be roughly proportionate to the number and type of
aircraft an airline typically uses at the airport, and therefore
proportionate to the costs of collecting and treating that ADF. Share
of landed weight can be considered a simple summary measure that
reflects both relative usage and aircraft size. This approach is also
consistent with how airports typically attribute airside operational
costs to airlines. EPA then calculated an airline's total compliance
costs by summing its airport-specific compliance costs over all
airports at which the airline is a co-permittee. Finally, each
airline's compliance costs were compared to its system-wide operating
revenue, operating profit, and net income.
The comparison of one year's average annualized compliance costs
with operating profit and net income is consistent with a typical
economic impact analysis. In a typical economic impact analysis, EPA
would project the affected entities' discounted compliance costs and
cash flow over the period of analysis. If an entity's pre-regulatory
discounted cash flow is positive, and its post-regulatory discounted
cash flow is negative (i.e., projected pre-regulatory discounted cash
flow less discounted compliance costs), the entity would be projected
to close as a result of the effluent guideline. EPA then typically
examines economic achievability by looking at the total number of
closures relative to the total number of in-scope companies. In this
case, if average compliance costs in one year exceed average operating
profit or net income for that year (i.e., the ratio of compliance costs
to operating profit or net income is greater than 100 percent), the
airline can be projected to ``close'' as a result of the effluent
guideline.
However, such an analysis is problematic for airlines for a number
of reasons. First, a baseline closure, an entity with negative income
prior to the promulgation of the effluent guideline, cannot be
evaluated on the basis described above because the logic of that
analysis requires that the entity's pre-regulatory income be greater
than zero. As amply documented in the EA (and updated in DCN AD01285),
the last decade has been financially difficult for the airline
industry, and approximately half the U.S.-flag airlines incurring
compliance costs as co-permittees under normal circumstances would be
categorized as baseline closures and could not be analyzed by this
standard.
Second, airlines have many options they can undertake in response
to increased costs, short of going out of business. For example,
airlines have the option to change service to a particular airport by
increasing fares, decreasing service frequency, using different
(typically smaller) aircraft, eliminating destinations flown to
directly from that airport, or even eliminating service altogether to
that airport.
To address the baseline closure issue, EPA included airline
operating revenue as a third measure against which
[[Page 29191]]
compliance costs can be compared, along with operating profit and net
income. The purpose of using operating revenue is solely because such a
large proportion of the airline industry cannot be evaluated due to
negative baseline operating profit and/or net income: 23 of 46 co-
permittee airlines with financial data available have negative baseline
operating profit, and 25 of 46 have negative baseline net income.
Furthermore, classifying an entity as a baseline closure does not mean
it will necessarily close; a business entity might earn negative
operating profit or net income at some point in its financial history
without closing permanently, and this appears to be particularly
prevalent in the airline industry (see, for example, the Industry
Profile in the EA). Rather than ignore roughly half of all co-permittee
airlines, EPA chose to evaluate them using the ratio of compliance
costs to operating profit to determine if the rule imposes costs that
can be characterized as ``relatively small.'' The primary drawback of
using operating revenue to measure economic impacts is that, unlike
with operating profit or net income, there is no obvious threshold that
determines what is economically achievable.
To respond to the issue of changing service levels at an airport,
it would also be informative to perform, if possible, a closure
analysis at the route level for each airline's routes associated with
airports. However, EPA does not have airline financial data available,
nor could it reasonably obtain airline financial data at either the
route level or the airport level. Therefore, EPA must evaluate impacts
to co-permittee airlines based on the only level at which airline
financial data are available: their system-wide operations.
D. Results of Impact Analysis
1. Results of Airport Impact Analysis
a. Revenue Test Impact Results
Table VII-2 shows the projected financial impact of the regulatory
options considered for today's rule based on the revenue test. Under
Option 1, airports would incur $78.4 million in annualized costs (7
percent real interest rate), and 9 of the 198 airports (4.5 percent)
are projected to incur costs exceeding 3 percent of operating revenue.
Of the 198 BAT airports, 172 airports (87 percent) are projected to
incur annualized compliance costs composing less than 1 percent of
operating revenue. Under Option 2, airports would incur $49.4 million
in annualized costs (7 percent real interest rate), and 5 of the 198
airports (2.5 percent) are projected to incur costs exceeding 3 percent
of operating revenue. Of the 198 airports subject to BAT, 176 airports
(89 percent) are projected to incur annualized compliance costs
composing less than 1 percent of operating revenue. Under both Option 1
and Option 2, five airports incur costs but do not have airport-
specific financial data because they are part of Alaska's Rural
Aviation System (RAS), and therefore could not be analyzed. Under
Option 3, airports would incur $3.5 million in annualized costs (7
percent real interest rate), and one of the 198 airports (0.5 percent)
are projected to incur costs exceeding 3 percent of operating revenue.
Of the 198 BAT airports, 190 airports (96 percent) are projected to
incur annualized compliance costs composing less than 1 percent of
operating revenue. Under Option 3, two airports incur costs but do not
have airport-specific financial data because they are part of Alaska's
RAS, and therefore could not be analyzed.
Table VII-2--Financial Impacts of BAT Options on Airports That Deice
[2006 $million--198 airports (weighted)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of airports with ratio of annualized compliance costs
Total to operating revenue of:
Option annualized ---------------------------------------------------------------
costs Between 1% and Greater than Not analyzed
Less than 1% 3% 3% \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... $78.4 172 13 9 5
2............................... 49.4 176 13 5 5
3 \b\........................... 3.50 190 6 1 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Airports incurred compliance costs but are owned by the state of Alaska; financial impacts could not be
analyzed because Alaska does not track revenue data for these airports.
b Selected option.
b. DSCR Impact Results
For multi-airport systems, the DSCR must be evaluated at the level
of the owner, aggregating compliance costs incurred by all system
airports. Thus, EPA analyzes entities owning single airports separately
from multi-airport systems. Under today's final rule, among owners of
single airports, none are projected to be in danger of default on its
debt even if 0 percent of compliance costs are assumed to be passed
through to airlines (see Table VII-3). EPA identified three multi-
airport systems owning four airports projected to incur costs under the
final rule (note these owners also owned other airports not projected
to incur costs); the results presented in Table VII-4 show that today's
final rule is projected to have no impact on the ability of multi-
airport authorities to finance debt. EPA did not analyze impacts to the
DSCR for the Alaska RAS (one system owning two BAT airports) because
Alaska does not use debt financing to fund this system.
[[Page 29192]]
Table VII-3--Impact of Financing BAT Options on Airport Debt Service Coverage Ratio--Single Airport Owners
[172 Airports (weighted)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners with pre-regulatory
DSCR > 1.25 and post-
Incur costs Not analyzed regulatory DSCR < 1.25
Option \a\ \a\ -------------------------------
100% cost pass 0% cost pass
through through
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 172 59 2 3
2............................................... 172 59 1 2
3 \b\........................................... 29 3 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Of 198 airports (weighted), each of the 172 airports was estimated to be both subject to BAT under Option 1
and Option 2 and the only airport controlled by its ownership. These columns represent the number of those 172
airports projected to incur costs under each option, and of those airports incurring costs, the number that
cannot be analyzed due to lack of sufficient data. Under Option 3, 29 airports incur costs under BAT; three of
which cannot be analyzed due to lack of sufficient data.
\b\ Selected option.
Table VII-4--Impact of Financing BAT Options on Airport Debt Service Coverage Ratio--Multi Airport Owners
[Nine airport authorities owning 21 in-scope airports (unweighted) \a\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incur costs \b\ Not analyzed \b\ Owners with pre-regulatory
---------------------------------------------------------------- DSCR > 1.25 and post-
regulatory DSCR < 1.25
Option -------------------------------
Owners Airports Owners Airports 100% cost pass 0% cost pass
through through
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... 9 21 1 5 0 0
2....................................................... 9 21 1 5 0 0
3 \c\................................................... 3 4 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Some airports that are part of a multi-airport system have a sample weight greater than one; because airports were not sampled based on ownership
patterns, it is not appropriate to use the sample weight in this analysis. The results cannot be extrapolated to represent any airports and their
ownership patterns other than themselves.
\b\ EPA found nine distinct airport authorities owning 21 airports that were determined to be subject to BAT under Options 1 and 2. These columns
represent the number of airport owners and the number of airports they owned that are projected to incur costs under each option, and of those owners
and airports incurring costs, the number that cannot be analyzed due to lack of sufficient data. Four airports owned by three airport systems incur
costs under Option 3.
\c\ Selected option.
For the selected option, the DSCR analysis was performed on 26
airports owned by single airport authorities and 4 airports owned by 3
multi-airport authorities expected to incur costs under BAT (3 airports
owned by single airport authorities cannot be analyzed). EPA projects
that none of these airports are at risk for default on their debt.
c. Impacts to Alaska's RAS
Five airports operated by Alaska could not be analyzed using the
revenue test or the DSCR as presented above; all five airports are
projected to incur costs under Option 1 and Option 2, while only two of
these five airports are projected to incur costs under Option 3. These
airports are part of Alaska's RAS, which is not a self-supporting
system; Alaska has determined these airports must remain open despite
financial loses to provide access to otherwise isolated rural
communities. EPA evaluated economic impacts to these airports
separately, which is described as follows.
Alaska operates two airport systems. The Alaska International
Airport System (Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport and
Fairbanks International Airport) is a major enterprise fund of the
state of Alaska, and considered to be self-sufficient; in short, the
Alaska International Airport System operates in the same manner as most
other multi-airport authorities in the United States. Alaska's second
system, the RAS, which consists of 256 rural airports, is not a self-
sufficient government unit and loses money every year. EPA determined
that five RAS airports (Bethel, Ketchikan International, Sitka Rocky
Gutierrez, Nome, and Ralph Wien Memorial) would be subject to BAT
requirements. Due to the nature of transportation in Alaska, it is
vital that these airports remain in operation despite not being
profitable; approximately 82 percent of Alaskan communities are not
served by roads, and these communities rarely have a practical
alternative to air transportation for access (see DCN AD01336).
According to the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, RAS airports ``are funded through a combination of user
fees, state, local, or tribal funds, and federal funds.'' However, the
rural airports have very limited opportunities for generating revenue;
in 2004 revenues from airport users, concessions, and leasing of
airport property comprised less than 17 percent of the cost of
operating the system (DCN AD05081). The system is largely reliant on
state subsidies to pay O&M costs at these airports. Therefore, EPA
evaluated impacts to the RAS separately.
EPA estimated compliance costs for the five RAS airports subject to
BAT. EPA used the estimated yearly contribution of $23 to $24 million
by the state of Alaska to cover the operating costs of the RAS (DCN
AD05081) as a proxy for RAS operating revenues for the purpose of
measuring economic impacts; this is an underestimate of RAS revenues
because it does not account for the unknown revenue stream from other
sources. Under the selected BAT option in the final rule, projected
compliance
[[Page 29193]]
costs for the five RAS airports together total $61,000, which compose
0.26 percent of the state's contribution to airport operations. EPA
therefore determined that because compliance costs to the RAS compose
less than 3 percent of the system's revenues, the rule is economically
achievable to the RAS.
2. Results of Co-Permittee Airline Impact Analysis
Under Options 1 and 2, EPA determined that 27 airports subject to
BAT and incurring costs listed 75 individual airlines as co-permittees.
However, under the selected Option 3, six airports subject to BAT and
incurring costs listed 28 individual airlines as co-permittees. Twenty-
seven of these co-permittee airlines were U.S.-flagged, and one was
foreign-owned under Option 3. On average, each of the 27 U.S.-flagged
air carriers was a co-permittee at two airports, with a range of co-
permitting of between one to four airports. Under an assumption of a
50:50 split of compliance costs between airports and co-permittee
airlines, these 27 carriers would incur $180,000 in annualized
compliance costs, and the foreign-flag carrier would incur less than
$150 in annualized compliance costs.
Twenty-five of the 27 U.S. co-permittee airlines have available
financial data. Ten co-permittees have positive baseline operating
profits, while nine have positive baseline net income, and therefore
are eligible to be analyzed using these metrics. EPA projected that
none of these airlines will incur costs exceeding 3 percent of
operating profit or net income under Option 3, which is well short of
the 100 percent threshold that would indicate a definitive closure.
Furthermore, none of the 25 airlines were projected to incur compliance
costs exceeding 1 percent of operating revenues under Option 3.
Finally, to the extent that 50 percent of airport compliance costs
are shared with co-permittee airlines, impacts to airports are reduced
as measured by the ratio of compliance costs to operating revenue. EPA
projects that no airports incur costs exceeding 3 percent of revenues
under the promulgated option using the assumptions of the co-permittee
airline analysis. Assuming no costs are shared with co-permittee
airlines, EPA projected that one airport incurs costs exceeding 3
percent of revenues under this option.
3. Economic Achievability
Based on the analyses presented above, EPA has determined that the
selected option is economically achievable. EPA finds that the
promulgated option is economically achievable both when airports are
assumed to incur 100 percent of compliance costs, and when airports and
their applicable airline co-permittees are assumed to share compliance
costs.
Under previous rulemaking efforts that directly impose compliance
costs on government agencies, EPA used the revenue test to evaluate
impacts to these agencies; when projected compliance costs exceed 3
percent of operating revenues, the rule is judged to be unaffordable
for a facility. As shown in Table VII-2, only one airport, which
represents 0.5 percent of the airports subject to BAT, is projected to
incur costs exceeding 3 percent of operating revenue when airports are
assumed to incur 100 percent of compliance costs. EPA used several
conservative assumptions in evaluating impacts to airports; costs were
annualized using a real 7 percent interest rate, which is significantly
higher than airports typically pay for debt financing. At the 7 percent
real interest rate, EPA demonstrated that airports' ability to service
debt would not, in general, be negatively affected by the rule. EPA
also did not take into account airports' ability to access other
funding for capital expenditure, such as AIP grants or PFCs. Also, EPA
performed its analysis of airport impacts without distributing any
costs to co-permittee airlines. As such, the estimates of impacts at
airports with co-permittees may be overstated.
As noted in the previous section, EPA examined a number of
alternative measures of economic impacts for airports in response to
public comments on the proposed rule. However, EPA found none of these
alternative approaches to be preferable to the revenue test method.
None of the approaches provided a clear dividing line for determining
what impacts might or might not be economically achievable for
airports. That is, even if EPA selected one of industry's alternative
measures, EPA would still have to determine some threshold that
distinguishes impacts that are economically achievable from those that
are not; industry did not provide such thresholds with their preferred
measures, and for one measure specifically stated they did not know the
appropriate threshold. Nevertheless, EPA did perform sensitivity
analyses to determine what affect the use of these alternative measures
might have on its conclusions on economic achievability of the final
rule. EPA's sensitivity analyses found that using these alternative
measures would not substantively change the overall results on the
final rule's economic achievability. The results of these alternative
analyses are not presented in this preamble, but are included in the EA
as sensitivity analyses.
With respect to airlines that are NPDES co-permittees, none of
these airlines are shown to incur a demonstrable impact under the
selected option on three airline income measures: operating revenue,
operating profit, or net income. Therefore, EPA finds the costs to be
economically achievable for co-permittee airlines for today's final
rule.
Finally, EPA also assumed compliance costs would not be passed
through to airlines and/or their passengers in the form of higher rates
and charges. As previously explained, EPA did assume costs would be
shared by co-permittee airlines. The no-pass-through assumption is
conservative and EPA believes that airports and, ultimately, airlines
will likely pass through costs to reduce the cost and impact of the
rule, which is further support for EPA's conclusion that today's final
rule is economically achievable.
E. Economic Impacts for New Sources
EPA has determined that the NSPS in the final rule would not impose
a barrier to entry for new sources. DIA is the only ``greenfield''
airport, or an airport built on undeveloped land or land not previously
used for aviation, that definitely meets the scope of this rulemaking,
and was built in the past 25 years.\5\ DIA was developed with deicing
pads and an extensive treatment system for collected ADF; information
from DIA demonstrates that the CDPs, along with the extensive treatment
system, comprised 3.6 percent of the cost of building a new airport,
and did not pose a barrier to entry (DCN AD01260).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ DIA opened in 1995, but new, major airports built prior to
Denver predate it by 20 or more years: Dallas-Fort Worth, which
opened in 1973, George Bush International in Houston, Texas, and
Washington Dulles, which opened in the 1960s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously indicated, the building of major greenfield airports
has become a relatively rare occurrence. Conversion of ex-military
airports (e.g., Orlando International) appears to be a much more common
source of sites for cities seeking to increase air transportation
access. Such conversions would not be considered ``new sources'' under
today's rule. EPA reviewed FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport
Systems (NPIAS) reports published between 2002 and 2010, and found that
the development of any new commercial service airports
[[Page 29194]]
is relatively rare, but a smaller commercial service greenfield airport
is more likely to be built, as compared to a major airport. In 2002,
FAA expected 125 airports, none of which were commercial service
airports, to open within the next five years. Furthermore, when queried
in 2011, FAA indicated that they had no applications for any new
airports that would be subject to NSPS in today's rule, nor were they
aware of any expected applications. However, two new primary airports
recently opened in Panama City, Florida (May 2010), and St. George,
Utah (January 2011). A new, smaller commercial airport is more likely
than a large airport such as DIA, EPA wanted to examine the possible
barrier to entry for new smaller commercial airports that might be
subject to new source requirements.
Based on incomplete data published in the NPIAS, EPA assumes that
the St. George airport, with a planned service level of 55,000 annual
enplanements, cost $159 million (approximately $145 million in 2006
dollars). The Panama City airport, with a planned service level of
225,000 annual enplanements, appears to have cost $318 million
(approximately $289 in 2006 dollars) in the same period. Because
eligibility for the ELG is partly based on non-propeller driven
aircraft departures, EPA estimated departures for these two airports
based on expected annual enplanements. Among the 198 existing airports
subject to BAT requirements, only 14 airports in the lower 48 states
have fewer than 100,000 annual enplanements, and only six airports have
fewer than 60,000 annual enplanements. Thus, EPA believes an airport
like St. George might be too small to be subject to the requirements of
this new source performance standard.
EPA then looked to Panama City as a model for a barrier to entry
analysis for small, commercial facilities. Clearly, due to its
location, an airport such as Panama City airport will not be subject to
NSPS requirements. However, this airport is the only airport EPA found
with data available on construction costs, and is of sufficient size
that it might be subject to the ELG were it located further north.
Therefore, EPA used Panama City's cost data to represent a new,
relatively small airport that could be subject to NSPS.
Based on the costs of constructing CDPs and related ADF wastewater
treatment system at Denver, EPA estimated the average capital cost per
departure of constructing a CDP and treatment system of appropriate
size to meet the Denver airport's operating requirements as total
capital cost of the deicing pad and treatment system divided by average
annual departures. Thus, the average capital cost of a CDP and related
ADF wastewater treatment system is approximately $897 per average
annual departure at Denver. In addition, EPA estimated annual
departures at Panama City; existing commercial service airports with
annual enplanements between 200,000 and 300,000 have, on average, about
32.3 passengers per departure, so EPA expects Panama City will average
somewhat less than 6,959 departures per year \6\. Therefore, EPA
estimates that should an airport the size of Panama City need to build
a CDP and ADF wastewater treatment system, the capital cost of that pad
will be about $6.2 million, or about 2.2 percent of the initial cost of
the airport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA notes that NSPS for ADF collection and treatment only
applies to airports that have at least 10,000 annual departures.
Because Panama City is the only airport of its size for which EPA
has data and because it is close to, but does not exceed, the size
cut-off for NSPS applicability, EPA concludes that new airports with
greater than 10,000 annual departures would similarly not experience
a barrier to entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, after comparing costs for CDPs and associated treatment
systems at small and large airports in comparison to overall airport
construction costs and finding that such pads and treatment systems
cost from 2.2 percent to 3.3 percent of the cost of building a new
airport, EPA has determined that the NSPS in the final rule would not
impose a barrier to entry to new sources (DCN AD01260).
F. Cost and Pollutant Reduction Comparison
Today's final rule is expected to reduce COD and ammonia loads by
16.4 million pounds at an annualized cost of $3.5 million, for a cost
of $0.21 per pound of pollutant removed.
Table VII-5--Pollutant Removals, Costs and Cost-Reasonableness of BAT Options for Airports That Deice (Weighted)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total Incremental
pollutant annualized Cost/lb cost/lb
Option removals costs (2006 $ pollutant pollutant
(million lb) million) removed removed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 33.0 $78.4 $2.37 $10.4
2............................................... 30.2 49.4 1.64 3.3
3 \a\........................................... 16.4 3.50 0.21 0.21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Selected option.
EPA has reviewed the relative cost per pound of pollutants removed
in previous effluent guidelines and has found that the cost per pound
presented in today's final airport deicing rule is similar to or less
expensive than many guidelines promulgated to date including Aluminum
Forming (40 CFR part 467), $2.42/lb; Landfills (40 CFR part 445),
$15.00/lb; and Waste Combustors (40 CFR part 444), $38.83/lb. EPA notes
that the selected option is eight times more cost effective than the
next more stringent option based on average cost/lb removed, and
sixteen times more cost effective than the next more stringent option
based on incremental cost/lb removed.
G. Small Business Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (hereinafter
referred to as RFA), acknowledges that small entities have limited
resources, and makes it the responsibility of regulating federal
agencies to avoid burdening such entities unnecessarily. The ultimate
goal of RFA is to ensure that small entities do not incur
disproportionate adverse economic impacts as a result of a regulation.
The first step in this process is to determine the number and type of
small entities potentially affected by the regulation.
The RFA (5 U.S.C. 601) defines three types of small entities: Small
business, small not-for-profit organization, and small governmental
jurisdictions. Airport ownership is composed of states, county, city
governments, and
[[Page 29195]]
single and multi-purpose port authorities. Single and multi-purpose
port authorities are quasi-governmental agencies created by legislation
to maintain and operate airports, shipping ports, and other government-
owned facilities such as bridges.
The RFA defines a small government entity as governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than 50,000. After matching each
airport-owning governmental entity with its population, EPA estimates
that:
72 airports are owned by small government entities.
20 airports owned by small government entities are subject
to BAT requirements in today's final rule.
Three airports owned by small government entities and
subject to BAT requirements incur costs under the promulgated option in
today's final rule.
Although many Alaskan airports are relatively small when measured by
service level, most of these airports are owned by the state of Alaska
and therefore are not considered small for the purposes of the RFA; 10
of the 11 surveyed Alaskan airports are not small by this standard.
One of the 20 BAT airports owned by small government entities is
expected to incur total annualized compliance costs exceeding three
percent of airport operating revenues.
Table VII-6--Financial Impacts of BAT Options on Small Airports That Deice \a\
[2006 $million--20 airports (weighted)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of airports with ratio of annualized compliance costs
Total to operating revenues of:
Option annualized ---------------------------------------------------------------
costs Between 1% and Greater than Not analyzed
Less than 1% 3% 3% \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... $0.34 19 0 1 0
2............................... 0.34 19 0 1 0
3 \c\........................... 0.31 19 0 1 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ An airport is considered small if the governmental entity that owns the airport serves a region with less
than 50,000 people.
\b\ Airports incurred compliance costs but financial impacts could not be analyzed due to lack of airport
revenue data.
\c\ Selected option.
EPA found that 18 airlines that are co-permittees at BAT airports
are small by Small Business Administration (SBA) standards; 16 of these
airlines had available financial data. Six airlines that are small by
SBA standards are co-permittees at BAT airports that incur costs under
the promulgated option, and five of these airlines have available
financial data. None of the five small co-permittee airlines were
projected to incur compliance costs exceeding 1 percent of operating
revenues under Option 3. When comparing compliance costs with operating
profits and net income, three small airlines had positive baseline
operating profits and net income, and none are projected to incur costs
exceeding 3 percent of either measure under Option 3. Again, these
findings are well short of the 100 percent threshold that would
indicate a definitive closure.
One airport with airline co-permittees on its NPDES permit is small
by SBA standards. This airport's projected compliance costs exceed 3
percent of airport revenue if it does not share compliance costs with
its co-permittee airlines. Its costs do not exceed 3 percent of revenue
if it does share compliance costs with its co-permittee airlines.
EPA concludes that small entities are not disproportionately
affected by this effluent limitations guideline. Only a fraction of in-
scope airports are small by SBA standards, and only one of those
airports is projected to incur costs exceeding 3 percent of operating
revenues. Furthermore, this airport is not projected to exceed that
threshold if 50 percent of its compliance costs are shared with co-
permittee airlines. EPA also concludes that small airlines are not
disproportionately affected by the rule. Airlines are only subject to
the rule if they are co-permittees on an airport's NPDES permit. Six
co-permittee airlines are small by SBA standards; five of these
airports have available financial data. As previously described,
analysis of these airlines shows that under the assumption of 50:50
costs sharing with affected airports, none come close to a threshold
that indicates a significant impact of their financial situation.
VIII. Environmental Assessment
A. Environmental Impacts
EPA has evaluated environmental impacts associated with the
discharge of wastewater from airport deicing activities (Environmental
Impact and Benefit Assessment [EIB]). As discussed in Section VI.B,
deicing wastewater discharges can increase the loadings of multiple
pollutants to receiving surface waters.
The most widely recognized pollutant from deicing activity is
oxygen-demanding material, measured as either COD or BOD5.
All primary ingredients in both aircraft and airfield deicers exert
oxygen demand. Propylene glycol and ethylene glycol are the primary
ingredients in aircraft deicers. Acetate salts, formate salts,
propylene glycol, ethylene glycol, and urea are the primary ingredients
in airfield deicers. Propylene glycol and ethylene glycol, in
particular, exert extremely high levels of oxygen demand when they
decay in the environment. Acetates, formates, and urea exert lower,
though still significant, levels of oxygen demand.
Acetate or formate salts, the primary ingredients in many airfield
deicers, also contain potassium or sodium. Potassium and sodium can
raise overall salinity levels or cause ion imbalances in surface
waters. Urea, another primary airfield deicer ingredient, decomposes in
water to produce ammonia, a toxic compound, and nitrates, a nutrient
pollutant that can increase the incidence of algal blooms in surface
waters.
Aircraft and airfield deicers also contain additives in addition to
the primary ingredients. These additives serve a variety of purposes,
such as reducing fluid surface tension, thickening, and fire and
corrosion inhibition. Because deicer manufacturers consider the
identity and quantity of additives in their formulations to be
proprietary information, EPA was unable to obtain complete information
on the nature and use of these additives.
EPA was able to obtain some limited information through various
public sources, and identified several additives with toxic properties.
These additives include nonylphenol ethoxylates, alcohol ethoxylates,
triazoles, and
[[Page 29196]]
polyacrylic acid, among others. Although toxic, these additives
directly influence the effectiveness and safety of deicing and anti-
icing formulations and are therefore essential components. Because
deicer formulations change periodically, some of the additives EPA
identified may not be present in current formulations. Deicing fluid
manufacturers are also investigating ways to formulate deicing and
anti-icing compounds with the use of less toxic, or non-toxic,
additives.
Airports in the United States discharge deicing wastewater to a
wide variety of water body types, including streams, rivers, lakes and
estuaries. Many airports discharge deicing wastewater to small streams
with limited waste dilution and assimilation capacities. Impacts from
deicing wastewater discharges have been documented in a variety of
surface waters adjacent to or downstream of a number of airports in the
United States. Some locations experienced acute impact events, whereas
other locations have experienced chronically degraded conditions.
Observed impacts to surface waters include both physical and biological
impacts. Some surface waters have been listed as impaired under section
303(d) of the CWA because they do not meet applicable state water
quality standards. Physical impacts include elevated levels of glycol,
salinity, ammonia, and other pollutants; depressed oxygen levels;
foaming; noxious odors; and discoloration. Biological impacts include
reduced organism abundance, fish kills, modified community composition,
and reduced species diversity.
Deicing wastewater discharges have impaired both aquatic community
health and human uses of water resources. Available documentation
indicates multiple cases of hypoxic conditions and severe reduction in
aquatic organism levels in surface waters downstream of deicing
wastewater discharge locations. Documented human use impacts include
contamination of surface drinking water sources, contamination of
groundwater drinking water sources, degraded surface water aesthetics
due to noxious odors and discolored water in residential areas and
parklands, and degradation of fisheries.
B. Environmental Benefits
EPA has evaluated environmental benefits associated with today's
final rule to reduce the discharge of pollutants from airport deicing
activities. This assessment is described in detail in the EIB. The
final rule is expected to decrease COD discharges associated with
airport runway deicing and anti-icing activities by approximately 12.0
million pounds per year. The rule is also estimated to reduce ammonia
discharges by 4.4 million pounds. Note these do not count benefits from
the NSPS, which were not estimated quantitatively, due to the
difficulty of predicting when and where in-scope new airports may be
built. However, EPA projects qualifying new airport construction over
the next decade to be minimal.
The decline in pollutant loadings will reduce environmental impacts
to surface waters adjacent to and downstream of these airports. A
variety of surface waters have improved in quality after reductions in
deicing pollutant loadings. Documented improvements have included
abatement of noxious odors, decline in fish kill frequency, and partial
recovery of community species diversity and organism abundance in small
water bodies.
Today's final rule will decrease pollutant loadings to multiple
surface waters currently listed as impaired under CWA section 303(d).
The rule will also reduce pollutant loadings to surface drinking water
intakes, parks, and residential areas downstream of airports.
Groundwater aquifers will also benefit. See the EIB for additional
details.
IX. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
Sections 304(b) and 306 of the CWA require EPA to consider non-
water-quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements)
associated with effluent limitations guidelines and standards. As
explained in Section V, EPA evaluated three regulatory options for
today's rule. The first two options are based on technologies to
control aircraft and airfield deicing discharges and the third option
is based on technology to control only airfield deicing discharges.
Section V also explains that EPA selected Option 3 as the basis for the
final requirements.
To comply with the requirements to consider non-water quality
environmental impacts, EPA first performed a formal analysis of the
potential impact of the Option 1 technologies on energy consumption,
air emissions, and solid waste generation. Because Option 2 is similar
to Option 1, but would result in less operational changes at a subset
of airports and therefore lead to less non-water quality impacts than
Option 1, EPA did not perform a formal analysis of non-water quality
impacts associated with Option 2. Instead, EPA concluded that the
results for Option 2 will be similar to or less than Option 1. Because
Option 3 is based only on technology to control airfield deicing
discharges, EPA also analyzed impacts for Option 3. As described below,
there are no non-water quality impacts associated with the regulatory
option selected for the basis of the final regulation, Option 3. There
are no increases in energy usage, air emissions, or solid waste
generation associated with substituting one airfield deicing product
with another. For a more in-depth discussion of EPA's formal analysis
of non-water quality impacts, see the TDD.
A. Energy Requirements
1. Options 1 and 2
Net energy consumption associated with Option 1 and Option 2
considers electrical requirements for pumping ADF-contaminated
stormwater from collection areas to storage, electrical requirements
for operating AFB bioreactors, and fuel requirements for GCVs. There is
no net energy consumption associated with product substitution, the
technology basis for Option 3.
EPA estimates that the total incremental electrical usage for
Option 1 to pump ADF-contaminated stormwater into storage tanks would
be approximately 1.2 million kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr). EPA also
developed a relationship between electrical use and COD removal by the
AFB bioreactors based on information provided by Albany International
(ALB) airport. Using the information from ALB, EPA estimated the
electrical requirement for COD removal for Option 1 as approximately
1.3 kWh/lb COD removed. Using this unit rate, EPA estimated total
electrical requirements to remove COD for Option 1 to be a maximum
additional 22 million kWh/yr.
EPA also analyzed fuel use by GCVs collecting ADF-contaminated
stormwater. EPA used Airport Questionnaire data for diesel fuel costs
for GCVs, and then estimated an average diesel fuel use based on the
unit cost for diesel fuel of $2.07/gallon.\7\ EPA then estimated annual
fuel usage per gallon of applied ADF to be 0.08 gallons per gallon of
ADF applied. Using this relationship, EPA estimated that the total
incremental consumption of No. 2 diesel fuel, at all airports subject
to BAT and installing additional collection
[[Page 29197]]
equipment, to be 354,500 gallons per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This diesel fuel price was the average reported by the
Energy Information Administration for the 2004 to 2005 winter
season, the same period that EPA is analyzing for airport deicing
activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA compared incremental diesel fuel use by GCVs as a result of
Option 1 to diesel fuel use on a national basis. Approximately 25.4
million gallons of No. 2 diesel fuel was consumed per day in the United
States in 2005. The diesel fuel requirement associated with Option 1 is
less than 0.004 percent of the annual amount of diesel fuel consumed.
EPA also considered qualitatively the potential for Options 1 and 2
to cause flight delays and possibly greater jet fuel use as a result.
EPA was not able to quantify this effect, because EPA was not able to
project how many flights would be delayed for how long or how much
extra fuel use this might entail. However, EPA's selection of Option 3
will also ensure that there are no unacceptable energy impacts
associated with increased jet fuel use.
2. Option 3
EPA did not identify any additional energy consumption associated
with the Option 3 technology. There is no change in energy consumption
associated with substituting one airfield deicer with another.
B. Air Emissions
1. Options 1 and 2
Additional air emissions as a result of Option 1 could be
attributed to added diesel fuel combustion by GCVs collecting ADF-
contaminated stormwater and from anaerobic treatment of ADF. Emissions
from these sources are discussed below. There could also be increases
in emissions from aircraft operations associated with Option 1, but EPA
was not able to quantify this effect.
a. Emissions From GCV Collection
EPA estimated the air emissions from the Option 1 ADF collection
requirement. As discussed in Section IX.A above, EPA conservatively
estimated that GCVs collecting ADF-contaminated stormwater at airports
will consume an additional 354,500 gallons of No. 2 diesel fuel per
year. To estimate air emissions related to combustion of No. 2 diesel
fuel in the internal combustion engines on GCVs, EPA used published
emission factors for internal combustion engines. The Agency selected
emission factors for gasoline and diesel industrial engines because EPA
assumed this class to be a more representative population of engines.
To estimate emissions from the GCVs, EPA first converted the additional
354,500 gallons of diesel fuel to million British thermal units and
then applied the appropriate emission factors. The calculated annual
emissions indicate that an additional 4,070 tons per year of
CO2 will be emitted from GCVs combusting additional diesel
fuel to comply with the rule. CO2 is the primary greenhouse
gas attributed to climate change, and the 4,070 additional tons per
year that would be associated with the rule is very small, as relative
to other sources. For example, in 2006, industrial facilities
combusting fossil fuels emitted 948 million tons of CO2
equivalents. An additional 4,070 tons per year from GCVs is less than a
0.0004 percent increase in the overall CO2 emissions from
all industrial sources.
b. Emissions From AFB Treatment Systems
Anaerobic digestion of glycols found in ADF-contaminated stormwater
generates biogas containing approximately 60 percent methane and 40
percent CO2. Airports installing AFBs for treatment of ADF-
contaminated stormwater are expected to burn a portion of the gas in
onsite boilers in order to maintain reactor temperature. The remainder
of gas can be either combusted in a microturbine for electricity
generation or flared. Regardless of the combustion technology, nearly
all biogas generated by AFBs is converted to CO2, the
primary greenhouse gas. EPA calculates a maximum 3,730 additional tons
per year of CO2 generation for 40 percent ADF collection,
which is very small relative to other sources. For example, in 2006,
industrial facilities combusting fossil fuels emitted 948 million tons
of CO2 equivalents. An additional 3,730 tons per year of
CO2 from AFB treatment is less than 0.0004 percent of the
annual industrial CO2 emissions nationwide.
2. Option 3
EPA did not identify any additional air emissions associated with
the Option 3 technology. There is no change in air emissions associated
with substituting one airfield deicer with another.
C. Solid Waste Generation
1. Options 1 and 2
AFB bioreactors will generate sludge that will require disposal,
probably in an offsite landfill. To estimate annual sludge generation
by the AFB bioreactors that may be installed at airports to treat ADF-
contaminated stormwater under Option 1, EPA first estimated the
potential COD removal for the collection and treatment scenarios and
then applied published anaerobic biomass yield information to estimate
total sludge generation on a national basis. The biomass yield
calculation, which simply multiplies the COD removal by the yield, is a
rough method of estimating sludge generation and does not account for
other factors such as degradation or inorganic material (e.g., AFB
media) that may be entrained into the sludge. However, this method does
provide an order of magnitude estimate of sludge generation that can be
compared to other types of common biological treatment systems to
determine if AFB sludge generation would be unusually high at airports
treating ADF-contaminated stormwater.
To provide some perspective on the potential total amount of
biomass produced annually by the AFB biological reactors treating ADF-
contaminated stormwater, EPA compared the most conservative biomass
generation estimate with its national biosolids estimates for all
domestic wastewater treatment plants throughout the United States.
Approximately 8.2 million dry tons of biosolids were produced in 2010.
EPA estimates that AFB bioreactors treating ADF-contaminated stormwater
will increase biosolids generation in the United States by
approximately 271 dry tons/year or less than 0.003 percent of dry ton
biosolids produced in the United States in 2010.
2. Option 3
EPA did not identify any additional sludge generation associated
with the Option 3 technology. There is no change in sludge generation
associated with substituting one airfield deicer with another.
X. Regulatory Implementation
A. Relation of ELGs and Standards to NPDES Permits
Effluent guidelines act as a primary mechanism to control the
discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. Today's final
rule will be applied to airports through incorporation in individual or
general NPDES permits issued by EPA or authorized states under section
402 of the Act.
The Agency has developed the limitations for this final rule to
cover the discharge of pollutants from this point source category.
Those permits issued after this rule is effective must incorporate the
effluent limitations guidelines and NSPS in this rule. For airports
below the regulatory thresholds in this rule, EPA intends to allow
permitting authorities to apply technology-based requirements on a best
professional judgment basis. Also, for any airport discharges, under
section 510 of the CWA, states may require
[[Page 29198]]
effluent limitations under state law as long as they are no less
stringent than the requirements of this rule. Finally, in addition to
requiring application of the technology-based effluent limitations
guidelines and standards in this rule, section 301(b)(1)(C) of CWA
requires the permitting authority to impose more stringent effluent
limitations on discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality
standards.
For individual permits, ELG provisions are typically incorporated
when those permits are renewed, although permit authorities may require
modification upon promulgation upon consent of the permittee. EPA will
revise its MSGP to include the airport deicing provisions when the
permit is renewed, and authorized states will proceed likewise with
their respective general permits.
B. Effective Date
The effective date for today's final rule is June 15, 2012.
C. Compliance With the NSPS Requirement
1. Applicability
The final rule establishes airfield pavement deicing effluent
controls for new primary airports with 1,000 non-propeller aircraft
departures annually. For a subset of these airports--certain airports
located in cold climatic zones--it also establishes ADF effluent
controls.
A new airport that opens with less than 1,000 departures would not
be subject to today's requirements. However, if the number of
departures at this new airport later increases above the departure
threshold, then Sec. 449.11 becomes applicable. For the ADF collection
and treatment NSPS requirements, if a new airport located in an area
that has more than 3,000 annual heating degree days and estimates that
within five years of commencing operations it will exceed 10,000 annual
departures, EPA expects it to plan during initial construction to be
able to install facilities that comply with the ADF collection and
treatment requirement should the departure threshold of the ADF
collection and treatment threshold be exceeded. If the new airport
elects not to do so, it must still meet all applicable ADF collection
and discharge requirements in the event it exceeds the departure
threshold within five years of construction. During the planning
process for a new airport, FAA requires the airport sponsors to prepare
long-range aviation forecasts, including estimates of passenger
enplanement levels and use of jet aircraft. See FAA Advisory Circular
150/5070-6B, Chapter 7, ``Aviation Forecasts.'' These forecasts will
provide a sufficient basis for a new source airport to estimate if it
will be likely to exceed the departure threshold.
2. Demonstrating Compliance With the NSPS Collection Requirement
The NSPS ADF collection requirement differs from end-of-pipe
effluent limitations with regard to demonstrating compliance.
Compliance with the collection requirement may not always be determined
through end-of-pipe sampling and analysis. Additionally, the amount of
ADF available for collection can vary depending on the weather and
icing conditions at the time of application. As in the proposed rule,
today's final rule provides three procedures for selection by the
permittee, for demonstrating compliance with the ADF collection
requirement.
To use the first procedure, at Sec. 449.20(b), a permittee
certifies to the permitting authority that it is operating its
collection system in accordance with specifications for the applicable
technology. The specifications describe design and operating practices
for the technologies. As long as these technologies are operated and
maintained as required, the permittee will be deemed in compliance with
the associated collection rate. The only reporting requirement for this
procedure is for the permitted facilities to certify to the permit
authority that it is operating according to the specifications.
Since it is not practical for EPA to provide operating
specifications for all potential collection technologies, the procedure
at Sec. 449.20(b)(2) allows an airport with an individual permit to
propose performing ADF collection with a technology other than those
described in the regulations. The permit authority may allow, on a
case-by-case basis, an alternative ADF collection technology as the
manner in which the permittee must demonstrate compliance with its
collection requirement. The Director may also allow alternate operating
parameters for one of the technologies listed elsewhere in Sec.
449.20, as requested and demonstrated by the permittee. For example, an
airport may operate a CDP, and through more aggressive collection
measures, have data to show that 60 percent of available ADF for its
aircraft deicing operations as a whole is collected, without
necessarily having all flights deiced in the designated collection
area(s). Another example would be an airport that uses a technology
other than CDPs, with clearly detailed technical specifications and
data demonstrating it achieves 60 percent collection of the available
ADF. A third example would be an airport that is unable or unwilling to
use a standard set of collection technologies and operating procedures,
and instead elects to demonstrate compliance with the ADF collection
requirement by regular monitoring of applied and collected ADF. See
Sec. 449.20(a)(3). EPA has not published a specific monitoring
methodology for a permittee to demonstrate its compliance with the
collection requirement, but expects that such a demonstration would
involve some type of mass-balance analysis. This procedure would be
developed by the permittee, prior to the permitting authority proposing
the permit, so that the method would be subject to public comments
prior to incorporation into the permit. As long as the permittee is
able to demonstrate to the permit authority's satisfaction that the
specified technology is designed to achieve the collection requirement
as set forth in Sec. 449.11(a)(1), the only reporting requirement for
this provision is for the permittee to certify that it is operating and
maintaining its technology as required in its permit.
3. P2 Approaches
Several P2 approaches and technologies are described above in
Section IV.D.3. Although EPA did not identify any of these technologies
as a basis for NSPS, these technologies may be effective at reducing
available ADF. Moreover, future P2 technologies may become available to
aid in meeting the NSPS requirements. Permittees using P2 technologies
that reduce the volume of, or quantity of, pollutants in, available ADF
may request a credit to be applied to the ADF collection requirement.
Under Sec. 449.20 (b)(2)(ii), a permittee may request a credit by
providing documentation of the volumes or loads associated with the
available ADF that would be generated in the absence of the P2 approach
and the volumes or loads associated with the available ADF reduced
through the use of P2. Once the permit authority determines that the
reduction values are demonstrated, it will adjust the ADF collection
requirement by subtracting the P2-based available ADF reductions from
the original ADF collection requirement. The following two examples
show how an airport may use the P2 provisions to reduce the amount of
ADF that is required for collection.
a. P2 Example 1
On average, Airport X uses 600 gallons of Type I ADF and 500
gallons of Type IV ADF per flight and has 1,000
[[Page 29199]]
flights during a deicing season. In order to meet the 60 percent
collection requirement, the airport must demonstrate the collection and
treatment (or equivalent source reduction of) 300,000 gallons of
available ADF.
600 gallons Type I x 75% available for collection + 500
gallons x 10% available for collection = 500 gallons available ADF/
flight
500 gallons available ADF/flight x 1,000 flights x 60
percent collection = 300,000 gallons for collection.
The airport decides to install an IR deicing system and wants to
use it in combination with GCVs as the basis for its 60 percent
collection requirement. The airport provides data to its permit
authority that use of an IR deicing system reduces 90 percent of the
available ADF per aircraft and that the new IR facility has the
capability of comfortably handling 600 flights per deicing season. This
reduction is equivalent to the collection of 270,000 gallons of
available ADF as shown below:
500 gallons available ADF/flight x 90 percent reduction in
available ADF = 450 gallons ADF reduction per flight
600 flights x 450 gallon reduced = 270,000 gallons ADF
reduced.
Therefore, the airport would need to collect an additional 30,000
gallons of available ADF during the deicing season:
300,000 gallons of ADF required for control -270,000
gallons of ADF reduced = 30,000 gallons to collect.
EPA's documentation shows that GCVs collect 20 percent of available
ADF. In order to collect the remaining 30,000 gallons, the airport
would need to use GCVs when deicing 300 flights during the deicing
season.
500 gallons of available ADF/flight x 20 percent
collection = 100 gallons of ADF collected per flight.
300 flights x 100 gallons collected per flights = 30,000
gallons of ADF collected.
In this example, for every 1,000 flights where deicing would be
appropriate, the airport could use the IR for 600 flights, GCVs for 300
flights, and may elect to collect nothing for 100 flights. More
generically, for every one flight deiced with no collection, three
flights must be deiced in an area with GCV collection and six flights
must be sent through the IR system. The airport would have the
flexibility to apply these technologies as appropriate for each event.
For example, if the airport was experiencing exceptional delays for a
particular event, the airport could forgo collection during that event
as long as it had documentation to demonstrate that over the deicing
season the combination of these technologies was applied in a manner to
theoretically achieve the required percentage.
b. P2 Example 2
On average, Airport Y uses 300 gallons of available ADF per flight
and has 8,000 flights during the deicing season. In order to meet the
60 percent collection requirement, the airport must demonstrate the
collection and treatment (or equivalent source reduction of) 1,440,000
gallons of available ADF.
300 gallons available ADF/flight x 8,000 flights x 60
percent collection = 1,440,000 gallons for collection.
Airport Y has recently installed forced air nozzles and covered
deicing booms, and has provided data to its permit authority that use
of these technologies together reduces 65 percent of the available ADF
per aircraft.
Airport Y deices all of its aircraft using these forced air nozzles
and covered deicing booms, resulting in a source reduction of 1,560,000
gallons of ADF per deicing season.
300 gallons of Available ADF/flight x 65 percent reduction
= 195 gallons of ADF reduced per flight
8000 flights x 195 gallons reduced per flights = 1,560,000
gallons of ADF reduced.
As a result, Airport Y is in compliance with the 60 percent
collection requirement simply through the use of the P2 technologies.
D. Alternative Compliance Option for Pavement Deicers Containing Urea
While EPA expects that most airports will choose product
substitution to meet the pavement deicer requirement in Sec. 449.10(b)
or Sec. 449.11(b), airports may continue to use pavement deicers
containing urea if they meet the alternative effluent limitation. An
airport that chooses this alternative is required to perform an
analysis for ammonia in airfield pavement discharges at all locations
where pavement deicing with deicers containing urea is occurring and
must achieve the numeric limitations for ammonia prior to any dilution
or commingling with other non-deicing discharges. The sampling
frequency, analytical method, and reporting procedures are determined
by the permit authority.
E. COD Effluent Monitoring for New Source Direct Dischargers
New source direct dischargers subject to Sec. 449.11(a) are
required to sample and analyze the discharges from their treatment
system for COD prior to any dilution or commingling with other non-
deicing waters. The sampling frequency, analytical method, and
reporting procedures are determined by the permit authority. Permittees
must follow the sampling protocol specified in Appendix A of Part 449.
F. Best Management Practices
Sections 304(e), 308(a), 402(a), and 501(a) of the CWA authorize
the Administrator to prescribe best management practices (BMPs) as part
of effluent guidelines and standards or as part of a permit. EPA's BMP
regulations are found at 40 CFR 122.44(k). Section 304(e) of the CWA
authorizes EPA to include BMPs in effluent limitation guidelines for
certain toxic or hazardous pollutants to control ``plant site runoff,
spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from raw
material storage.'' CWA section 402(a)(1) and NPDES regulations (40 CFR
122.44(k)) also provide for BMPs to control or abate the discharge of
pollutants when numeric limitations and standards are infeasible. In
addition, CWA section 402(a)(2), read in concert with CWA section
501(a), authorizes EPA to prescribe as wide a range of permit
conditions as the Administrator deems appropriate in order to ensure
compliance with applicable effluent limitations and standards and such
other requirements as the Administrator deems appropriate.
There are no BMPs specified in today's final rule. However,
existing NPDES permits for airports include BMP requirements, and some
permits may have included, as required BMPs, the technologies that EPA
has identified as a basis for BAT or NSPS in today's rule. Other BMPs
included in airport permits include dikes, curbs, and other control
measures to contain leaks and spills as part of good ``housekeeping''
practices. Under section 510 of the CWA or section 301(b)(1)(C), a
permitting authority on a facility-by-facility basis may choose to
incorporate BMPs into the permit. See the TDD for a detailed discussion
of P2 and BMPs used by airports and airlines.
G. Upset and Bypass Provisions
A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of the streams from any
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional
incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance
with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations
concerning bypasses and upsets for direct dischargers are set forth at
40 CFR 122.41(m) and (n). The bypass
[[Page 29200]]
provisions could be used to address situations where an emergency
application of ADF or pavement deicer was necessary to ensure safe
operation of an aircraft or airfield, provided the conditions for its
use are met.
H. Variances and Modifications
The CWA requires application of effluent limitations established
pursuant to Section 301 to all direct dischargers. However, the statute
provides for the modification of these national requirements in a
limited number of circumstances. The Agency has established
administrative mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the
application of the national effluent limitations guidelines for
categories of existing sources for toxic, conventional, and
nonconventional pollutants.
1. Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF) Variance
EPA, with the concurrence of the state, may develop effluent
limitations different from the otherwise applicable requirements if an
individual discharger is fundamentally different with respect to
factors considered in establishing the limitation of standards
applicable to the individual discharger. Such a modification is known
as an FDF variance. EPA, in its initial implementation of the effluent
guidelines program, provided for the FDF modifications in regulations,
which were variances from the BCT effluent limitations, BAT limitations
for toxic and nonconventional pollutants, and BPT limitations for
conventional pollutants for direct dischargers. FDF variances for toxic
pollutants were challenged judicially and ultimately sustained by the
Supreme Court (Chemical Manufacturers Association v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, 479 U.S. 116 (1985)).
Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new
CWA Section 301(n). This provision explicitly authorizes modifications
of the otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations, if a discharger
is fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in CWA
Section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in
establishing the effluent limitations. CWA Section 301(n) also defined
the conditions under which EPA may establish alternative requirements.
Under Section 301(n), an application for approval of a FDF variance
must be based solely on (1) information submitted during rulemaking
raising the factors that are fundamentally different or (2) information
the applicant did not have an opportunity to submit. The alternate
limitation must be no less stringent than justified by the difference
and must not result in markedly more adverse non-water quality
environmental impacts than the national limitation.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 125, subpart D, authorizing the
regional administrators to establish alternative limitations, further
detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF variance requests
for direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d) identifies six factors
(e.g., volume of process wastewater, age and size of a discharger's
facility) that may be considered in determining if a discharger is
fundamentally different. The Agency must determine whether, based on
one or more of these factors, the discharger in question is
fundamentally different from the dischargers and factors considered by
EPA in developing the nationally applicable effluent guidelines. The
regulation also lists four other factors (e.g., inability to install
equipment within the time allowed or a discharger's ability to pay)
that may not provide a basis for an FDF variance. In addition, under 40
CFR 125.31(b) (3), a request for limitations less stringent than the
national limitation may be approved only if compliance with the
national limitations would result in either (a) a removal cost wholly
out of proportion to the removal cost considered during development of
the national limitations, or (b) a non-water quality environmental
impact (including energy requirements) fundamentally more adverse than
the impact considered during development of the national limits. The
legislative history of Section 301(n) underscores the necessity for the
FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the variance. EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in imposing this burden
upon the applicant. The applicant must show that the factors relating
to the discharge controlled by the applicant's permit which are claimed
to be fundamentally different are, in fact, fundamentally different
from those factors considered by EPA in establishing the applicable
guidelines. In practice, very few FDF variances have been granted for
past ELGs. An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to
NSPS.
2. Economic Variances
Section 301(c) of the CWA authorizes a variance from the otherwise
applicable BAT effluent guidelines for nonconventional pollutants due
to economic factors. The request for a variance from effluent
limitations developed from BAT guidelines must normally be filed by the
discharger during the public notice period for the draft permit. Other
filing periods may apply, as specified in 40 CFR 122.21(m)(2). Specific
guidance for this type of variance is provided in ``Draft Guidance for
Application and Review of Section 301(c) Variance Requests,'' dated
August 21, 1984, available on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/OWM0469.pdf.
3. Water Quality Variances
Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a variance from BAT effluent
guidelines for certain nonconventional pollutants due to localized
environmental factors. These pollutants include ammonia, chlorine,
color, iron, and total phenols.
I. Information Resources
The Transportation Research Board (TRB), a division of the National
Academies of Science, established a research panel to develop fact
sheets on deicing practices to assist airports in reducing their
deicing chemical usage and discharges. A report was prepared in 2009
under TRB's Airport Cooperative Research Program, titled ``Deicing
Planning Guidelines and Practices for Stormwater Management Systems.''
This report (DCN AD01191) and the fact sheets (DCN AD01192) are
available in the docket for today's rule.
XI. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews
A. EO 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and EO 13563: Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review
EPA submitted this action to OMB for review under EO 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993) and EO 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and
any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained
in this rule under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0285.
Section 449.10(a) requires that airports certify annually on the non-
use of airfield pavement deicers containing urea (unless they choose to
comply with a numeric limit for ammonia instead).
EPA estimates it will take an annual average of 198 hours and
$6,534 for permittees to collect and report the information required by
the rule. This estimate is based on average labor rates obtained from
EPA's airport questionnaire. EPA estimates that the
[[Page 29201]]
time and cost for permit authorities to review the information
submitted in response to requirements in the rule is negligible. EPA
estimates that there will be no start-up or capital cost associated
with the information described above. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320(b).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. In addition, EPA is
amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved OMB control
numbers for various regulations to list the regulatory citations for
the information requirements contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, EPA determined that all airports expected to be subject
to BAT requirements are owned by government entities. The RFA defines a
small government entity as governments of cities, counties, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a
population of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601 (5)). After considering
the economic impact of today's final rule on small entities, including
consideration of alternative regulatory approaches, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. After matching each airport-owning
governmental entity with its population, EPA estimates that 20 of 198
airports subject to BAT, or 10 percent, are owned by small government
entities. EPA projected impacts on these small airports using the
revenue test described in Section VII.C.2.a. EPA found that one of the
20 small BAT airports are expected to incur annualized compliance costs
exceeding 3 percent of airport operating revenues.
In general, airlines are not directly subject to the final rule. In
a small number of cases, airlines are co-permittees on NPDES permits at
certain airports, and such co-permittee airlines are therefore subject
to the final rule. EPA determined that 18 airlines considered small by
SBA standards are co-permittees, but based on the analytic approach
described in Section VII.C.3, none are expected to be significantly
impacted by the rule
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA undertook a
number of steps to minimize the impact of this rule on small entities.
According to the FAA NPIAS (2007-2011), there are almost 3,000 public
use general aviation and reliever airports in the United States, some
of which have substantial cargo service. Many, if not most, of these
airports are likely to be owned by small government entities. Also
likely to be owned by small governmental entities are approximately 135
non-primary commercial service airports. EPA has chosen not to regulate
any general aviation, reliever, or non-primary commercial service
airports under today's final rule. EPA also estimates that in addition
to the 20 small government-owned primary commercial airports, another
52 primary commercial airports are owned by small government entities,
but will be out-of-scope of the regulation because little or no ADF is
used at those airports.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
As explained in Section VII and the TDD, the annual cost of the rule is
$3.5 million. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
By statute, a small government jurisdiction is defined as a
government with a population less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601). Because
all in-scope airports are owned by a government or governmental agency,
the definition for a small airport is identical for the purposes of
both UMRA and SBREFA. If the rule exceeds annual compliance costs of
$100 million in aggregate, all provisions of UMRA will need to be met.
If the rule does not exceed $100 million in aggregate costs, but small
airports are significantly or uniquely affected by the rule, EPA will
be required to develop the small government agency plan required under
section 203 of UMRA because these airports are owned by small
governments.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The scope of the
rule focuses on the airports that are the largest users of ADF. The
rule is not projected to exceed $100 million in aggregate annual
compliance costs. Further, as discussed in Section XI.C, EPA has
determined the rule will not have significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
E. EO 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in EO 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Today's final
rule requires airports to implement water pollution control
requirements through a long-established regulatory mechanism (i.e.,
NPDES) which is jointly administered by EPA and states. EPA expects the
rule will have little effect on the relationship between, or the
distribution of power and responsibilities among, the federal and state
governments. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this action. In the
spirit of EO 13132 and consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and state and local governments, EPA
specifically solicited comment on the proposed action from state and
local officials, however, none were received on the topic of
federalism.
F. EO 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in EO
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). It will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the
federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes.
Today's rule contains no federal mandates for tribal governments and
does not impose any enforceable duties on tribal governments. Thus, EO
13175 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of EO 13175 and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
tribal governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed
rule on tribal impacts. No comments were received on this topic.
[[Page 29202]]
G. EO 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and
Safety Risks
This rule is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it is not an economically significant rule pursuant to EO
12866.
H. EO 13211: Energy Effects
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in EO
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001)
because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. As explained in Section IX.A,
EPA determined that today's final rule will not require any additional
energy usage.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-113, sec. 12(d);
15 U.S.C. 272) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the Agency
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards. However, EPA identified no such standards, and
none were brought to EPA's attention in comments. Therefore, EPA
decided to use the technology-based controls for aircraft and airfield
pavement deicing discharges described in Section V.
J. EO 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. The rule will reduce the negative effects of
discharges from airports to the nation's waters, to benefit all of
society, including minority communities.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the FR. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the FR. This action is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective June 15, 2012.
Appendix A to the Preamble: Abbreviations and Definitions Used in This
Document
AAIA: Airport and Airway Improvement Act
ACI-NA: Airports Council International-North America
ADF: Aircraft deicing fluid (includes anti-icing fluid)
AFB: Anaerobic fluidized bed
AIP: Airport Improvement Program
ALB: Albany International Airport
ATA: Air Transport Association
BADCT: Best available demonstrated control technology
BAT: Best available technology economically achievable, as defined
by sec. 301(b)(2)(A) and sec. 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA
BCT: Best conventional pollutant control technology
BMP: Best management practice
BOD5: Biochemical oxygen demand
BPJ: Best Professional Judgment
BPT: Best conventional pollutant control technology
CBI: Confidential Business Information
CDP: Centralized deicing pad
CO2: Carbon dioxide
COD: Chemical oxygen demand
CWA: Clean Water Act
CWT: Centralized waste treatment
DIA: Denver International Airport
DSCR: Debt service coverage ratio
EA: Economic Analysis
EIB: Environmental Impact and Benefit
EO: Executive Order
EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ELG: Effluent limitation guideline
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration
FDF: Fundamentally different factor
GARB: General airport revenue bonds
HDD: Heating degree day
IR: Infrared
GCV: Glycol collection vehicle
MSGP: Multi-Sector General Permit
Net income: Operating profit minus interest, taxes, depreciation,
and non-operating profits and losses
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOI: Notice of Intent to discharge under a general permit (40 CFR
122.28(b)(2))
Normalized ADF: ADF less any water added by the manufacturer or
customer before ADF application.
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, as defined
by sec. 402 of the CWA
NPIAS: National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
NSPS: New Source Performance Standards, as defined by sec. 306 of
the CWA
NTTAA: National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
O&M: Operations and maintenance
Operating profit: Revenues minus cost of providing those services
P2: Pollution prevention
PFC: Passenger Facility Charges
POTW: Publicly owned treatment works
PSES: Pretreatment standards for existing sources
PSNS: Pretreatment standards for new sources
PV: Present value
RAS: Rural Aviation System
Revenues: Money received for services rendered
RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act
SBA: Small Business Administration
TDD: Technical Development Document
ThOD: Theoretical oxygen demand
TRB: Transportation Research Board
UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C.: United States Code
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 449
Environmental protection, Airline, Airport deicing, Airports, Waste
treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.
Dated: April 25, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
[[Page 29203]]
PART 9--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 United States Code (U.S.C.) 135 et seq., 136-136y;
15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a,
348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314,
1318, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O.
11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241,
242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5,
300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-
6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
0
2. In Sec. 9.1, the table is amended by adding a new heading and entry
to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control
40 CFR citation No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Airport Deicing Point Source Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
449.10(a)............................................... 2040-0285
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
3. Part 449 is added to read as follows:
PART 449--AIRPORT DEICING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Subpart A--Airport Deicing Category
Sec.
449.1 Applicability.
449.2 General definitions.
449.10 Effluent limitations representing the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
449.11 New source performance standards (NSPS).
449.20 Monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Subpart B--[Reserved]
Appendix A to Part 449--Sampling Protocol for Soluble COD
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1318, 1342, 1361 and
1370.
Subpart A--Airport Deicing Category
Sec. 449.1 Applicability.
This part applies to discharges of pollutants from deicing
operations at Primary Airports.
Sec. 449.2 General definitions.
The following definitions apply to this part:
Aircraft deicing fluid (ADF) means a fluid (other than hot water)
applied to aircraft to remove or prevent any accumulation of snow or
ice on the aircraft. This includes deicing and anti-icing fluids.
Airfield pavement means all paved surfaces on the airside of an
airport.
Airside means the part of an airport directly involved in the
arrival and departure of aircraft, including runways, taxiways, aprons,
and ramps.
Annual non-propeller aircraft departures means the average number
of commercial turbine-engine aircraft that are propelled by jet, i.e.,
turbojet or turbofan, that take off from an airport on an annual basis,
as tabulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Available ADF means 75 percent of the normalized Type I aircraft
deicing fluid and 10 percent of the normalized Type IV aircraft deicing
fluid, excluding aircraft deicing fluids used for defrosting or deicing
for safe taxiing.
Centralized deicing pad means a facility on an airfield designed
for aircraft deicing operations, typically constructed with a drainage
system separate from the airport main storm drain system.
COD means Chemical Oxygen Demand.
Collection requirement means the requirement in Sec. 449.11 for
the permittee to collect available ADF.
Defrosting means the removal of frost contamination from an
aircraft when there has been no active precipitation.
Deicing mean procedures and practices to remove or prevent any
accumulation of snow or ice on:
(1) An aircraft; or
(2) Airfield pavement.
Deicing for safe taxiing means the application of ADF necessary to
remove snow or ice to prevent damage to a taxiing aircraft.
FAA Advisory Circular means a guidance document issued by the FAA
on methods, procedures, or facility design.
Heating degree day means the number of degrees per day the daily
average temperature is below 65 degrees Fahrenheit. The daily average
temperature is the mean of the maximum and minimum temperature for a
24-hour period. The annual heating degree day value is derived by
summing the daily heating degree days over a calendar year period.
Normalized Type I or Type IV aircraft deicing fluid means ADF less
any water added by the manufacturer or customer before ADF application.
Primary Airport means an airport defined at 49 U.S.C. 47102 (15).
Sec. 449.10 Effluent limitations representing the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source with at least 1,000 annual non-propeller aircraft
departures must comply with the following requirements representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of BAT. The
BAT requirements for point sources with less than 1,000 annual non-
propeller aircraft departures are beyond the scope of this regulation
and shall be determined by the permit authority on a site-specific
basis.
(a) Airfield pavement deicing. There shall be no discharge of
airfield pavement deicers containing urea. To comply with this
limitation, any existing point source must certify annually that it
does not use airfield deicing products that contain urea or
alternatively, airfield pavement discharges at every discharge point
must achieve the numeric limitations for ammonia in Table I, prior to
any dilution or commingling with any non-deicing discharge.
Table I--BAT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastestream Pollutant Daily maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airfield Pavement Deicing... Ammonia as Nitrogen. 14.7 mg/L.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 449.11 New source performance standards (NSPS).
New sources with at least 1,000 annual non-propeller aircraft
departures must achieve the following new source performance standards.
The new source performance standards for point sources with less than
1,000 annual non-propeller aircraft departures are beyond the scope of
this part and shall be determined by the permit authority on a site-
specific basis.
(a) Aircraft deicing. Except for new airports located in Alaska,
all new sources located in an area that, at the time of construction,
had more than
[[Page 29204]]
3,000 annual heating degree days, and are estimated, within five years
of commencing operations, to exceed 10,000 annual departures, must
comply with the following requirements upon the date the facility
exceeds 10,000 annual departures. New source performance standards that
apply prior to that date, new source performance standards for sources
that project they will not exceed 10,000 annual departures within five
years of commencing operations, and new performance standards for
airports in Alaska, are beyond the scope of this regulation and shall
be determined by the permit authority on a site-specific basis.
(1) Collection requirement. The new source must collect at least 60
percent of available ADF.
(2) Numerical effluent limitation. The new source must achieve the
performance standards in Table II for available ADF collected pursuant
to paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The limitation must be met at the
location where the effluent leaves the onsite treatment system utilized
for meeting these requirements and before commingling with any non-
deicing discharge.
Table II--NSPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastestream Pollutant Daily maximum Weekly average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Deicing................. COD...................... 271 mg/L................ 154 mg/L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Airfield pavement deicing. There shall be no discharge of
airfield pavement deicers containing urea. To comply with this
limitation, any new source must certify annually that it does not use
airfield deicing products that contain urea or alternatively, airfield
pavement discharges at every discharge point must achieve the numeric
limitations for ammonia in Table III, prior to any dilution or
commingling with any non-deicing discharge.
Table III--NSPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastestream Pollutant Daily maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airfield Pavement Deicing... Ammonia as Nitrogen. 14.7 mg/L.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 449.20 Monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) Demonstrating compliance with the ADF collection requirement
for dischargers subject to NSPS collection requirements in Sec.
449.11. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, an
individual permittee shall select a procedure under either paragraphs
(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section in its permit application as the
procedure for the permittee to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable collection, reporting and recordkeeping requirements of this
Part. A procedure selected by the permittee under paragraph (a)(2) of
this section may be included in the permit only with the Director's
approval, as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. For general
permits, use of alternative methods for determining compliance with the
ADF collection requirement for dischargers subject to NSPS collection
requirements in this part will be at the discretion of the Director.
(1) The permittee shall maintain records to demonstrate, and
certify annually, that it is operating and maintaining one or more
centralized deicing pads. This technology shall be operated and
maintained according to the technical specifications set forth in
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section. For both individual
and general permits, these technical specifications shall be expressly
set forth as requirements in the permit. The permittee's demonstration
and valid certification are sufficient to meet the applicable NSPS
collection requirement without the permittee having to determine the
numeric percentage of available ADF collected.
(i) Each centralized deicing pad shall be sized and sited in
accordance with all applicable FAA advisory circulars.
(ii) Drainage valves associated with the centralized deicing pad
shall be activated before deicing activities commence, to collect
available ADF.
(iii) The centralized deicing pad and associated collection
equipment shall be installed and maintained per any applicable
manufacturers' instructions, and shall be inspected, at a minimum, at
the beginning of each deicing season to ensure that the pad and
associated equipment are in working condition.
(iv) All aircraft deicing shall take place on a centralized deicing
pad, with the exception of defrosting and deicing for safe taxiing.
(2) Alternative technology or specifications. (i) An individual
permit (or a general permit at the discretion of the Director) may
allow one of the following alternative procedures for demonstrating
compliance with its collection requirement, instead of the procedure in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The permittee must submit all
information and documentation necessary to support this request. An
individual permittee may request this alternative procedure in its
initial permit application or permit renewal application. During the
term of an individual permit, the permittee may also request this
alternative procedure as a permit modification, subject to the
requirements and procedures at 40 CFR 122.62 and 40 CFR part 124. If
the Director determines, in his or her discretion, that the requested
alternative procedure will achieve the collection requirement in the
permit, the Director shall approve the request:
(A) The use of a different ADF collection technology from the
centralized deicing pad technology specified in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section; or
(B) The use of the same ADF collection technology, but with
different specifications for operation and/or maintenance.
(ii) Pollution prevention credit. A permittee may apply for, and
obtain, full or partial credit towards compliance with the available
ADF collection requirement. To obtain credit the permittee must
demonstrate to the Director's satisfaction that it employs a pollution
prevention technique that reduces the volume of, or quantity of,
pollutants in, available ADF. The credit shall be equivalent to the
demonstrated reduction, as determined by the Director.
(iii) The Director shall set forth technical specifications for
proper operation and maintenance of the chosen collection technology,
as
[[Page 29205]]
appropriate, and compliance with these technical specifications must be
required by the permit. The permit shall also require the permittee to
maintain records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with these
requirements. This demonstration constitutes compliance by the
permittee with the percent capture requirement without the permittee
having to determine the numeric percentage of ADF that it has
collected. Before the Director may approve an alternate technology
under this subsection, the permittee must demonstrate to the Director's
satisfaction that the alternate technology will achieve the applicable
percent capture requirement.
(3) The permittee shall maintain records, by means deemed
acceptable by the Director, and report at a frequency determined by the
Director, on the volume of ADF sprayed and the amount of available ADF
collected in order to determine the compliance with the collection
requirement.
(b) Monitoring requirements--(1) COD limitation. Permittees subject
to the ADF collection and discharge requirements specified in Sec.
449.11 must conduct effluent monitoring to demonstrate compliance with
the COD limitation for all ADF that is collected. Compliance must be
demonstrated at the location where the effluent leaves the on-site
treatment system utilized for meeting these requirements and before
commingling with any non-deicing discharge. Effluent samples must be
collected following the protocol in Appendix A to this part.
(2) Ammonia limitation. If a permittee chooses to comply with the
compliance alternative specified in Sec. 449.10(a) or Sec. 449.11(b),
the permittee must conduct effluent monitoring at all locations where
pavement deicing with a product that contains urea is occurring, prior
to any dilution or commingling with any non-deicing discharge.
(c) Recordkeeping. (1) The permit shall provide that the permittee
must maintain on site, during the term of the permit, up to five years,
records documenting compliance with paragraphs (a) through (b) of this
section. These records include, but are not limited to, documentation
of wastewater samples collected and analyzed, certifications, and
equipment maintenance schedules and agreements.
(2) At the Director's discretion, a requirement may be included in
the permit for the permittee to collect, and maintain on site during
the term of the permit, up to five (5) years of data on the annual
volume of ADF used.
Subpart B--[Reserved]
Appendix A to Part 449--Sampling Protocol for Soluble COD
This sampling protocol applies only to samples collected for use
in measurement of COD when demonstrating compliance with the
regulations set forth in this part. Collect a representative sample
of the effluent from the airport deicing treatment system, based on
the discharge permit requirements (e.g., a grab sample or a
composite sample). Because only the COD sample is filtered, do not
use in-line filters if collecting a sample with a compositing
device.
A. Grab Samples
1. Cap the container and shake the grab sample vigorously to mix
it. Remove the plunger from a 10-milliliter (mL) or larger Luer-lock
plastic syringe equipped with an Acrodisc Luer-lock filter
containing a 1.5-[mu]m glass fiber filter (Whatman 934-AH, or
equivalent), and fill the syringe body with sample.
2. Replace the plunger and filter the sample into a clean 50-mL
screw-cap glass, plastic, or fluoropolymer bottle.
Note: If testing is being done in the field, or with a test kit
product (e.g., Hach Method 8000), the filtrate may be collected in
the test kit vial or container.
3. Additional 10-mL volumes of sample may be filtered and the
filtrate added to the same sample bottle. This additional volume may
be used to repeat sample analyses or to prepare Quality Control (QC)
samples, as needed.
4. Unless the filtered sample will be analyzed within 15
minutes, preserve the filtered sample with
H2SO4 to pH <2. Cap the bottle and label with
the sample number. Place in a cooler on ice prior to shipping.
5. Once at the analytical laboratory, the sample must be stored
at <=6 degrees Celsius and analyzed within 28 days of collection
(see the requirements for COD in Table II at 40 CFR part 136).
6. Analyze the sample using a method approved for COD in Table
IB at 40 CFR part 136.
Note: Because this procedure is specific to this point source
category, it does not appear by name in 40 CFR part 136.
7. Report the sample results as Soluble COD in units of
milligrams per liter (mg/L). There is no Chemical Abstracts Service
(CAS) Registry Number for soluble COD.
B. Composite Samples
1. If the sample will be analyzed in a fixed laboratory (as
opposed to field testing), transfer at least 50 mL of well-mixed
sample from the compositing device into a clean 50-mL screw-cap
glass, plastic, or fluoropolymer bottle. Preserve the sample with
H2SO4 to pH <2. Cap the bottle and label with
the sample number. Place in a cooler on ice prior to shipping.
2. Once at the analytical laboratory, the sample must be stored
at <=6 degrees Celsius and analyzed within 28 days of collection
(see the requirements for COD in Table II at 40 CFR part 136).
3. Prior to analysis, remove the sample from cold storage and
allow it to warm to room temperature. Shake the sample vigorously to
mix it.
4. Remove the plunger from a 10-mL or larger Luer-lock plastic
syringe equipped with an Acrodisc Luer-lock filter containing a 1.5-
[mu]m glass fiber filter (Whatman 934-AH, or equivalent), and fill
the syringe body with sample.
5. Replace the plunger and filter the sample into a clean COD
vial or other suitable container.
6. Additional 10-mL volumes of sample may be filtered and the
filtrate added to separate containers, as needed, to provide samples
for repeat analyses or to prepare QC samples.
7. Analyze the sample using a method approved for COD in Table
1B at 40 CFR part 136.
Note: Because this procedure is specific to this point source
category, it does not appear by name in 40 CFR part 136.
8. Report the sample results as Soluble COD in units of mg/L.
There is no CAS Registry Number for soluble COD.
[FR Doc. 2012-10633 Filed 5-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P