[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 166 (Friday, August 28, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44676-44718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20291]
[[Page 44675]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 449
Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for
the Airport Deicing Category; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74 , No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 44676]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 449
[EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0038 FRL-8948-2]
RIN 2040-AE69
Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing technology-based effluent limitation
guidelines (ELGs) and new source performance standards (NSPS) under the
Clean Water Act (CWA) for discharges from airport deicing operations.
The requirements generally would apply to wastewater associated with
the deicing of aircraft and airfield pavement at primary commercial
airports. The ELGs would be incorporated into the NPDES permits issued
by EPA, states or tribes. EPA expects compliance with this regulation
to reduce the discharge of deicing-related pollutants by at least 44.6
million pounds per year. EPA estimates the annual cost of the rule
would be $91.3 million.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 28, 2009. Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions must be received by the Office of Management and Budget on
or before September 28, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2004-0038 by one of the following methods:
http:www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2004-0038.
Mail: Water Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail Code: 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0038. Please include a total of
3 copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk
Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West
Building Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0038. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information by
calling 202-566-2426.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No EPA-HQ-OW-2004-
0038. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. A detailed record index, organized by
subject, is available on EPA's Web site at http://epa.gov/guide/airport. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the
EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, 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 Water Docket is 202-566-2426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Strassler, Engineering and
Analysis Division, telephone: 202-566-1026; e-mail:
[email protected] or Brian D'Amico, Engineering and Analysis
Division, telephone: 202-566-1069; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North American
Example of regulated Industry
Category entity Classification
System Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................... Primary airports with 481, 4881
over 1,000 annual jet
departures that
conduct deicing
operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities 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. 449.01 and the definitions in
Sec. 449.02 of the rule and detailed further in Section IV 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.
[[Page 44677]]
How To Submit Comments
The public may submit comments in written or electronic form. (See
the ADDRESSES section above.) Electronic comments must be identified by
the docket no. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0038 and must be submitted as a
WordPerfect, MS Word or ASCII text file, avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. EPA requests that any graphics
included in electronic comments also be provided in hard-copy form. EPA
also will accept comments and data on disks in the aforementioned file
formats. Electronic comments received on this notice may be filed
online at many Federal Depository Libraries. No confidential business
information (CBI) should be sent by e-mail.
Supporting Documentation
The rule proposed today is supported by a number of documents
including:
Technical Development Document for Proposed Effluent
Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
(TDD), Document No. EPA-821-R-09-004;
Economic Analysis for Proposed Effluent Limitation
Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (EA),
Document No. EPA-821-R-09-005;
Environmental Impact and Benefit Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing
Category (EIB), Document No. EPA-821-R-09-003.
These documents are available in the public record for this rule and on
EPA's Web site at http://epa.gov/guide/airport. They are available in
hard copy from the National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP), U.S. EPA/NSCEP, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio
45242-2419, telephone 800-490-9198, http://epa.gov/ncepihom.
Overview
The preamble describes the terms, acronyms, and abbreviations used
in this notice; the background documents that support these proposed
regulations; the legal authority of these rules; a summary of the
proposal; background information; and the technical and economic
methodologies used by the Agency to develop these regulations. This
preamble also solicits comment and data on specific areas of interest.
Table of Contents
I. Legal Authority
II. Purpose and Summary of Proposed Rule
III. Background
IV. Scope/Applicability of Proposed Rule
V. Industry Profile
VI. Summary of Data Collection
VII. Technology Options, Costs, Wastewater Characteristics, and
Pollutant Reductions
VIII. Economic Analysis for Airports
IX. Airline Impacts
X. Environmental Assessment
XI. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
XII. Regulatory Implementation
XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
XIV. Solicitation of Data and Comments
XV. Guidelines for Submission of Analytical Data
Appendix A: Abbreviations and Definitions Used in This Document
I. Legal Authority
EPA is proposing this regulation under the authorities of sections
301, 304, 306, 308, 402 and 501 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C.
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 Proposed Rule
Section 304(m) of the CWA, added by the Water Quality Act of 1987,
requires EPA to establish schedules for (1) reviewing and revising
existing effluent limitation guidelines and standards (``effluent
guidelines'') and (2) promulgating new effluent guidelines. On
September 2, 2004, EPA published an Effluent Guidelines Plan (69 FR
53705) that established schedules for developing new and revised
effluent guidelines for several industry categories. One of the
industries for which the Agency established a schedule was the Airport
Deicing Category. Today EPA proposes to set national standards for
control of wastewater discharges from deicing operations at airports.
Deicing operations include removal of ice from aircraft, application of
chemicals to prevent initial icing or further icing (anti-icing), and
removal of (and preventing) ice from airfield pavement (runways,
taxiways, aprons and ramps).
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, 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.
The proposed effluent guidelines and standards address both the
wastewater collection practices used by airports, and the treatment of
those wastes. Airports within the scope of this proposed rule would be
required to collect spent aircraft deicing fluid (ADF) and treat the
associated wastewater. Additionally, airports performing airfield
pavement deicing would be required to use non-urea-based deicers. The
requirements would be implemented in CWA discharge permits.
III. Background
A. Clean Water Act
Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, also known as the Clean Water Act (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 U.S. except as authorized under the CWA.
Under section 402 of the CWA, EPA authorizes discharges by a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (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.
Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that
discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be
sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires
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). See section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c).
National pretreatment standards are established 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 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
[[Page 44678]]
permits are derived from effluent limitation guidelines (CWA sections
301 and 304) and new source performance standards (sec. 306)
promulgated by EPA, or based on best professional judgment where EPA
has not promulgated an applicable effluent guideline or new source
performance standard. Additional limitations based on water quality
standards (sec. 303) may also 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 effluent limitation guidelines and
standards of performance for major industrial categories for three
classes of pollutants: (1) Conventional pollutants (i.e., total
suspended solids, oil and grease, biochemical oxygen demand, fecal
coliform, and pH); (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); and (3) non-
conventional pollutants (e.g., ammonia-N, formaldehyde, and
phosphorus).
B. NPDES Permits
Section 402 of the CWA requires permits for 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 1 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, which 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 stormwater permits.)
1. General Permits
Currently most airport deicing discharges are covered by a general
permit issued either by EPA or by 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 published permit.
For airports, the major requirements of the MSGP are:
Develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP),
including a drainage area site map, documentation of measures used for
management of runoff, an evaluation of runway and aircraft deicing
operations, and implementation of a program to control or manage
contaminated runoff, including consideration of various listed control
practices;
Implement deicing source reduction measures, including
minimizing or eliminating the use of urea and glycol-based deicing
chemicals; minimizing contamination of stormwater runoff 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 over 100,000 gal. of glycol based
deicing chemicals and/or 100 tons or more of urea annually, monitor
discharges quarterly for the first four quarters of the permit cycle,
for the following pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5), 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;
and routine facility inspections at least monthly during the deicing
season.
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. Some of these permits also
contain numeric water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs).
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 new source performance standards 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 also directed that
EPA not consider water quality impacts on individual water bodies as
the guidelines are developed. See Statement of Senator Muskie (Oct. 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.)
There are four types of standards applicable to direct dischargers
(dischargers to surface waters), and two standards applicable to
indirect dischargers (discharges to publicly owned treatment works or
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
[[Page 44679]]
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 sec.
304(b)(1)(B). If, however, existing performance is uniformly
inadequate, EPA may establish limitations based on higher levels of
control than 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: biochemical oxygen demand measured over five days
(BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), 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 effluent limitation guidelines 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. An additional statutory factor considered in setting BAT
is economic achievability. 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)
New Source Performance Standards reflect effluent reductions that
are achievable based on the best available demonstrated control
technology. 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 best
available demonstrated control technology 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)
Pretreatment standards apply to discharges of pollutants to
publicly owned treatment works (POTW) rather than to discharges to
waters of the United States. Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources 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 BAT effluent limitation guidelines. 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 (Jan. 14, 1987).
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
Section 307(c) of the Act calls for EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for new sources at the same time it promulgates new source
performance standards. 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 categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources
based principally on BAT technology for existing sources. EPA
promulgates pretreatment standards for new sources 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.
IV. Scope/Applicability of Proposed Rule
EPA solicits comments on various issues specifically identified in
this preamble as well as any other issues related to this rule that are
not specifically addressed in today's notice.
A. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR Part 449
EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitation guidelines and
standards for primary commercial airports that conduct deicing
operations and have more than 1,000 annual departures of scheduled
commercial jet aircraft. Further information on the rationale for the
proposed scope is provided in Section VII.D.1 of this preamble and in
both the TDD and the EA.
B. Overview of Technology Requirements
The proposed rule would require an airport subject to this Part to:
Collect at least a specified proportion (either 20 or 60
percent) of available ADF after it is sprayed on aircraft;
Meet a specified numeric effluent limit for ADF wastewater
collected and discharged on site; and
Certify that it uses airfield pavement deicers that do not
contain urea.
All references to ADF in today's proposed rule are for normalized ADF,
which is ADF less any water added by the manufacturer or customer
before ADF application.
The technologies that serve as the basis for the proposed ELGs are
summarized in Table IV-1 and Figure IV-1. These provisions are
explained in Section VII of this preamble.
[[Page 44680]]
Table IV-1--Summary of Proposed Airport Deicing Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical components
-------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory level Technology basis Airports > 1,000 annual jet Airports > 1,000 annual jet
departures and >= 10,000 departures and < 10,000
annual departures annual departures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT..................... 1. 60% or 20% ADF 1. Capture 60% of available 1. Certify use of non-urea-
capture. ADF (for airports having >= based pavement deicers or
460,000 gal. ADF usage) or Meet effluent limit for
capture 20% (for airports < ammonia.
460,000 gal. ADF usage).
2. Biological treatment. 2. Treat wastewater to meet
effluent limit for chemical
oxygen demand (COD).
3. Pavement deicer 3. Certify use of non-urea-
product substitution. based pavement deicers or
Meet effluent limit for
ammonia.
NSPS.................... 1. 60% ADF capture...... 1. Capture 60% of available 1. Certify use of non-urea-
ADF. based pavement deicers or
Meet effluent limit for
ammonia.
2. Biological treatment. 2. Treat wastewater to meet
effluent limit for chemical
oxygen demand (COD).
3. Pavement deicer 3. Certify use of non-urea-
product substitution. based pavement deicers or
Meet effluent limit for
ammonia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All references to ADF are for normalized ADF, which is ADF less any water added by the manufacturer or
customer before ADF application.
[[Page 44681]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28AU09.006
V. Industry Profile
A. Airport Population
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.
[[Page 44682]]
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 current calendar year ending
before the start of the current fiscal year.
B. FAA Deicing Requirements
The Federal Aviation Administration requires airlines to deice
aircraft and airfield pavement to protect the safety of passenger and
cargo operations. FAA regulations in 14 CFR Part 121 require a complete
deicing/anti-icing program. The regulations in 14 CFR Parts 121, 125
and 135 regulate takeoff when snow, ice, or frost is adhering to wings,
propellers, control surfaces, engine inlets, and other critical
surfaces of the aircraft. FAA does not require airlines to use a
specific technology when deicing aircraft. In fact, airlines develop
their own deicing protocols to meet the requirements of 14 CFR 125.221.
Additionally, FAA has released Advisory Circulars (AC) which provide
guidance for aircraft and airfield deicing, including AC 20-73A
(Aircraft Ice Protection), AC 135-16 (Ground Deicing & Anti-icing
Training & Checking), AC 120-58 (Pilot Guide: Large Aircraft Ground
Deicing) and AC 150/5300-14B (Design of Aircraft Deicing Facilities).
Advisory Circulars are available on FAA's Web site at http://www.airweb.faa.gov.
C. Description of Deicing Operations
A major concern for the safety of passengers is the clearing of ice
and snow buildup on runways, taxiways, roadways, gate areas, and
aircraft. Two basic types of deicing/anti-icing operations are
generally performed at an airport: the deicing/anti-icing of aircraft,
and the deicing/anti-icing of paved areas, including runways, taxiways,
roadways, and gate areas. The most common technique for the deicing/
anti-icing of aircraft is the application of chemical deicing/anti-
icing agents. Deicing of runways, taxiways, and roadways is most
commonly performed using mechanical means, but may also be performed
using chemical agents. The anti-icing of paved areas is typically
conducted with anti-icing chemicals.
1. Aircraft Deicing
Aircraft deicing involves the removal of frost, snow, or ice from
an aircraft. Aircraft anti-icing generally refers to the prevention of
the accumulation of frost, snow, or ice. The responsibility for
performing deicing/anti-icing varies between airports, but it is
usually performed by a combination of individual airlines and support
contractors, commonly called fixed-base operators (FBOs) or ground
service providers. Airlines typically select procedures for deicing/
anti-icing their aircraft, which are then approved by the FAA.
a. Chemical Deicing Practices
In the deicing/anti-icing process, aircraft are usually sprayed
with deicing/anti-icing fluids (ADF) that contain chemical deicing
agents; however, non-chemical methods are also performed. Deicing/anti-
icing occurs when the weather conditions are such that ice or snow
accumulates on an aircraft. During snowstorms, freezing rain, or cold
weather that causes frost to accumulate on aircraft surfaces including
the wings, deicing is necessary to ensure the safe operation of
aircraft. Studies have concluded that even a small amount of ice, if
located on critical aircraft surfaces (e.g., leading edge of the wing),
can cause significant decreases in lift.
The typical deicing season runs from October through April for most
airports in the northern U.S. In colder areas, the deicing season may
extend over a longer period. In warmer climates, the deicing season may
be shorter or deicing may rarely occur. However, it is important to
note that deicing may be needed in hot, humid areas at any time. Some
aircraft may experience frost build-up after landing at an airport in a
hot, humid area. (The phenomenon is similar to frost forming on a cold
glass of water exposed to hot, humid air and occurs for the same reason
that the cold glass developed frost. Fuel chills when a plane operates
at high altitudes where the temperature is very cold. When the plane
lands in a hot, humid area, the cold fuel chills the fuel tank. If the
tank is very close to the surface of the wing, it causes frost to form
on the wing.)
ADF works by adhering to aircraft surfaces to remove and/or prevent
snow and ice accumulation. Non-chemical methods include the use of
mechanical or thermal means (e.g., infrared heating) to prevent,
remove, or melt ice and snow. Two types of deicing are performed: Wet-
weather and dry-weather deicing, depending on a number of climatic and
operational factors. Wet-weather deicing is performed during storm
events that include precipitation such as snow, sleet, or freezing
rain. Dry-weather deicing is performed when changes in the ambient
temperature cause frost or ice to form on aircraft but no precipitation
is present. Dry-weather deicing may also be performed on some types of
aircraft whose fuel tanks become super-cooled during high-altitude
flight, resulting in ice formation at lower altitudes and after
landing. Dry-weather deicing may occur at temperatures up to 55[deg]
Fahrenheit (F), but generally requires a significantly smaller volume
of deicing fluid than wet-weather deicing.
During typical wet-weather conditions, 150 to 1,000 gallons of ADF
may be used on a single commercial jet, while as little as 10 gallons
may be used on a small corporate jet. An estimated 1,000 to 4,000
gallons may be needed to deice a larger commercial jet during severe
weather conditions. Aircraft anti-icing fluids are applied in much
smaller volumes than their deicing counterparts are. A commercial jet
requires approximately 35 gallons of fluid for anti-icing after
deicing. Generally, dry-weather deicing requires 20 to 50 gallons of
deicing fluid, depending on the size of the aircraft.
Chemical aircraft deicers are categorized into four classes. Not
all types are currently used. Fluid types vary by composition and
allowed holdover time (the estimated time for which deicing/anti-icing
fluid will prevent the formation of frost or ice and the accumulation
of snow on the treated surfaces of an aircraft). Type I is the most
commonly used fluid and is used primarily for aircraft deicing. These
types of fluids typically contain glycol as the active ingredient
(usually ethylene glycol or propylene glycol), along with water and
additives, and remove accumulated ice and snow from aircraft surfaces.
Types II, III, and IV were developed for anti-icing. These fluids form
a protective anti-icing film on aircraft surfaces to prevent the
accumulation of ice and snow. Anti-icing fluids are composed of either
ethylene glycol or propylene glycol, a small amount of thickener,
water, and additives. The additives in aircraft
[[Page 44683]]
deicing and anti-icing fluids may include corrosion inhibitors, flame
retardants, wetting agents, identifying dyes, and foam suppressors.
Type IV fluids can provide up to a 70 minute holdover time, depending
on atmospheric conditions. (Holdover time is the amount of time a given
aircraft treatment by ground anti-icing fluid remains effective.
Holdover time effectively runs out when frozen deposits start to form
or accumulate on treated aircraft surfaces.) Most large airlines use
both Type I and Type IV fluids.
Aircraft deicing and anti-icing operations usually occur at
terminal gates, gate aprons, taxiways, or centralized deicing pads.
Centralized deicing pads may be located near terminals and gates, along
taxiways serving departure runways, or near the departure end of
runways. Each airport may use only one or a combination of all of these
locations for deicing/anti-icing. The amount and type of deicing
performed at each location may vary. For example, an airport with
deicing pads may allow air carriers to perform minimal deicing at
gates, at a level sufficient to move the aircraft safely, and require
all other deicing operations to be conducted at a pad.
If deicing is not conducted at the gate, then, prior to takeoff, an
aircraft will taxi to an airport-approved deicing/anti-icing location.
Depending on the deicing location design, several aircraft may be
deiced simultaneously on a single deicing pad. Deicing trucks and/or
spray equipment mounted on fixed booms apply the appropriate ADF. One
to four deicer trucks may be used for deicing a single aircraft,
depending on its size and weather conditions. When holdover times are
exceeded prior to takeoff, secondary deicing/anti-icing is necessary.
If an aircraft must return to the gate or another designated location
for secondary deicing/anti-icing, its departure may be substantially
delayed. The need for secondary deicing will likely decrease as more
airlines use Type IV fluids to extend the allowable holdover time.
While the FAA has issued regulations and guidance on conducting
deicing/anti-icing operations, the aircraft pilot is ultimately
responsible for determining whether the deicing performed is adequate.
The pilot may inspect the aircraft after deicing and order additional
deicing or anti-icing.
Dry-weather deicing, also referred to as clear ice deicing, may be
performed whenever ambient temperatures are cold enough to form ice on
aircraft wings (below 55[deg] F). Dry-weather deicing is also used to
defrost windshields and wingtips on commuter planes and is usually
conducted throughout the entire deicing/anti-icing season.
b. Non-Chemical Deicing Practices
Non-chemical deicing methods involve mechanical or thermal means to
remove ice and snow from aircraft surfaces. Dry, powdery snow can be
swept from aircraft using brooms or brushes. Hot air blowers can also
be used to remove snow mechanically with forced air and to melt ice and
snow. In addition, some smaller aircraft are equipped with inflatable
pneumatic or hydraulic boots that can expand to break ice off the
leading edges of wings and elevators.
Mechanical snow removal methods (e.g., using nylon brooms and ropes
to remove snow from parked aircraft) are typically only used in the
early morning because they are time-intensive and labor-intensive, and
would be too disruptive to airline schedules during the day. Mechanical
methods are typically also used in conjunction with fluid application
and are dependent on climate and operational variables. Personnel must
be properly trained and provided with appropriate equipment so as not
to damage navigational equipment mounted on aircraft. Airlines
typically use brooms to remove as much snow and ice as possible before
applying conventional aircraft deicing fluids.
Other non-chemical deicing practices--infrared heating, forced air
and hot air systems--are being used at several airports throughout the
U.S. These technologies are described in Section VII.B.3, Pollution
Prevention Technologies.
2. Airfield Pavement Deicing
Pavement snow removal and deicing/anti-icing removes or prevents
the accumulation of frost, snow, or ice on runways, taxiways, aprons,
gates, and ramps. A combination of mechanical methods and chemical
deicing/anti-icing agents is used for pavement deicing at airports.
Runway deicing/anti-icing is typically performed by airport personnel
or a contractor hired by the authority. Some ramp, apron, gate, and
taxiway deicing/anti-icing may be performed by other entities, such as
airlines and FBOs that operate on those areas. Pavement deicing
typically occurs during the same season as aircraft deicing, but may be
shorter or longer than the aircraft deicing season.
a. Mechanical Methods
Mechanical methods, such as plows, brushes, blowers, and shovels
for snow removal, are the most common form of runway deicing, and may
be used in combination with chemical methods. Airports generally own
multiple pieces of snow removal equipment and have employees trained to
operate them. Sand may be used to increase the friction of icy paved
areas. Because winter storm events can be unpredictable, personnel
trained in pavement deicing/anti-icing may be available at an airport
24 hours a day during the winter season.
b. Chemical Methods
Because ice, sleet, and snow may be difficult to remove by
mechanical methods alone, most airports use a combination of mechanical
methods and chemical deicing agents. Common pavement deicing and anti-
icing agents include potassium acetate, sodium acetate, urea, ethylene
glycol-based fluids, propylene glycol-based fluids, and sodium formate.
Road salt (i.e., sodium chloride or potassium chloride) may be used to
deice/anti-ice paved areas that are not used by aircraft (e.g.,
automobile roadways and parking areas) but are not considered suitable
for deicing/anti-icing taxiways, runways, aprons, and ramps because of
their corrosive effects on aircraft.
Many airports perform deicing of heavy accumulations of snow and
ice using mechanical equipment followed by chemical applications.
Pavement anti-icing may be performed based on predicted weather
conditions and pavement temperature. Deicing and anti-icing solutions
are applied using either truck-mounted spray equipment or manual
methods.
3. Estimates of Deicing Activity
a. Aircraft Deicing Chemical Usage
Airlines use approximately 25 million gallons of ADF annually,
consisting of 22.1 million gallons of propylene glycol-based deicers
and almost 3 million gallons of ethylene glycol-based deicers. EPA
estimates that approximately 320 primary airports conduct deicing
operations annually and that approximately 85 percent of this ADF (21.6
million gallons) is used at 110 of the 320 airports.
b. Airfield Pavement Deicing Chemical Usage
Primary airports use approximately 71 million pounds of chemical
deicers on airfield pavement (runways, taxiways and ramps) annually.
The six most frequently used deicers, with estimated percentages by
weight, are as follows: potassium acetate (63 percent); urea (12
percent); propylene glycol-based fluids (11 percent); sodium acetate (9
percent);
[[Page 44684]]
sodium formate (3 percent); and ethylene glycol-based fluids (2
percent).
VI. Summary of Data Collection
A. Previous EPA Data Collection Activities
1. 1993 Screener Questionnaire
In 1992, EPA began developing effluent guidelines and standards for
the Transportation Equipment Cleaning (TEC) category (40 CFR Part 442).
The scope of the TEC regulation at that time included facilities that
clean the interiors of tank trucks, rail tank cars, and tank barges;
facilities that clean aircraft exteriors; and facilities that deice/
anti-ice aircraft and/or airport pavement. Initial data collection
efforts for this project related to airport deicing operations included
development and administration of a ``screener'' questionnaire that was
administered in 1993. The screener questionnaire was developed, in
part, to enable EPA to: (1) Identify facilities that perform TEC
aircraft operations; (2) evaluate facilities based on wastewater,
economic, and operational characteristics; and (3) develop technical
and economic profiles of the industry. Subsequent to distribution of
the screener questionnaire, EPA decided not to include the aircraft
segment as part of the TEC effluent guidelines that were promulgated in
2000 (65 FR 49665, August 14, 2000). The Agency indicated that its
recently-issued stormwater regulations and permits under the NPDES
program imposed new requirements for airport discharges, and that
aircraft cleaning and airport deicing operations were significantly
different from other portions of the TEC category.
EPA mailed the screener questionnaire to 760 entities that
potentially perform aircraft exterior cleaning and/or aircraft or
pavement deicing/anti-icing operations. Following the screener
questionnaire mail-out and analyses of responses, EPA estimated that,
in 1993, there were 588 entities (i.e., airlines and FBOs) that perform
deicing/anti-icing operations.
2. 1998-99 Preliminary Data Summary
EPA conducted a study of airport deicing practices in 1998-99 and
published a report in 2000. (Preliminary Data Summary: Airport Deicing
Operations (Revised), Document No. 821-R-00-016, August 2000). The
study described deicing operations in the industry, wastewater
characteristics and procedures for its collection and treatment. The
study was conducted to comply with CWA sec. 304(m), which requires the
Agency to publish a biennial Effluent Guidelines Plan, and a consent
decree in Natural Resources Defense Council and Public Citizen, Inc. v.
Browner (D.D.C. 89-2980, as modified February 4, 1997). As part of the
study, EPA distributed short questionnaires to several aviation
sectors, including those involved in deicing; conducted site visits to
airports; and conducted wastewater sampling episodes.
a. Questionnaires
In 1999, EPA sent questionnaires to airports, an airline industry
association, equipment vendors, and publicly owned treatment works
(POTW), and requested data about the 1998-99 deicing season. The
Airport Questionnaire was sent to nine airports and asked for
information on aircraft and airfield deicing activities; wastewater
handling and treatment; and airport structure, finances and operations.
A questionnaire requesting financial data was sent to an airline
industry association, which provided information about the deicing
operations of 12 of its members, and eight regional airlines also
received questionnaires. The Vendor Questionnaire was sent to nine
businesses and requested information about equipment used to collect,
control, recycle/recover, treat or reduce the generation of glycol-
contaminated wastewater from aircraft and airfield deicing operations.
The POTW Questionnaire was sent to nine facilities and requested
information about potential pollutants in wastewater discharges from
airports, and the potential environmental impacts stemming from POTWs'
acceptance of these wastes.
b. Wastewater Sampling
EPA conducted six sampling episodes for the study. Two of these
episodes obtained data on ADF, and four episodes obtained data on ADF-
contaminated wastewater and final effluent data from airports with
various collection and treatment systems.
c. Airport Site Visits
EPA visited 16 airports between 1997 and 1999 (including one visit
before the formal commencement of the study). Information gathered
included deicing operations, names and quantities of deicing chemical
products used, wastewater characterization, treatment technologies and
costs, and financial data. The Agency obtained effluent self-monitoring
data from some of the airports that were visited.
d. Other Data Sources
EPA collected data on NPDES permits and from the Toxic Release
Inventory database, which have wastewater discharge information. EPA
also collected data from state, local, and other federal agencies,
including the FAA, Department of Transportation and the United States
Geological Survey (USGS); and Canadian federal agencies involved with
airport environmental issues. These included interviews conducted
during site visits, airport effluent monitoring data, airline
operations data (i.e., departures and enplanement statistics), and
economic and financial information about the industry. All of the
collected data are available in the record for this proposed rule.
B. 2006-07 Industry Surveys
For this proposed rule, EPA developed a series of survey
questionnaires to compile a complete profile of the industry with
regard to type and amounts of deicing chemicals used, collection
systems, and wastewater treatment systems. These questionnaires
expanded on the Agency's earlier survey efforts by the design of a
scientific national statistical sample of airports and development of a
reasonable national estimate of deicing activity by major airlines. A
comprehensive set of questions and data tables was also developed. In
designing the questionnaires, EPA consulted with airport and airline
industry representatives, including the American Association of Airport
Executives (AAAE), Airports Council International--North America (ACI-
NA) and the Air Transport Association (ATA). The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) approved the questionnaires on January 13, 2006, and
EPA distributed the questionnaires during 2006 and 2007.
1. Airline Screener
EPA designed a short ``screener'' questionnaire to obtain basic
information from air carriers on which organizations actually performed
deicing services for a particular carrier, at specified airport
locations (i.e., the airline conducted its own deicing, it contracted
with another airline, or it used an FBO). EPA used the results of this
questionnaire to select respondents for the Detailed Airline
Questionnaire. The screener was distributed to 72 airlines and
requested information on deicing activities at 149 airports. EPA
distributed the screener to the industry in April 2006.
2. Airport Questionnaire
EPA designed the Airport Deicing Questionnaire to serve as the
Agency's primary data source for airport-specific
[[Page 44685]]
information. The questionnaire requested information on a number of
topics including, general airport information, deicing operations,
deicing stormwater collection and conveyance, deicing stormwater
treatment, sampling data, pollution prevention, receiving waters, and
airport financial information.
EPA distributed the Airport Deicing Questionnaire to the industry
in April 2006. The questionnaire was sent to 153 airports, including a
census of all large and medium hub airports, as well as a sample survey
of all Small and Non-Hub Airports. (General aviation airports were not
included in the survey, except for a few with large cargo operations,
because these airports are used mainly by small private airplanes that
typically do not fly during icing conditions, and therefore are sites
where little or no ADF use occurs.)
3. Detailed Airline Questionnaire
EPA designed the Detailed Airline Questionnaire in order to learn
more about the airlines' role in deicing operations, as well as to get
information that is more precise on ADF usage. This questionnaire was
EPA's primary data source for airline-specific information. The
questionnaire asked questions on topics including deicing operations,
ADF purchase and usage, pollution prevention practices, and operational
costs. The questionnaire was sent in March 2007 to 58 air carriers,
covering deicing operations at 57 airports. This questionnaire
requested information on a number of topics including: General airline
information, airline deicing practices, pollution prevention practices
and deicing costs.
C. Site Visits
In order to become familiar with the day-to-day operations at
airports, as well as learn some of the more site-specific issues that
arise with deicing, EPA conducted site visits at more than 20 airports.
EPA visited airports that had specific treatment technologies in place,
in order to learn more about these technologies. Some of the airports
included were Denver, Pittsburgh and General Mitchell (Milwaukee). All
site visits were documented with Site Visit Reports (SVRs), which are
in the record for today's proposed rule (Record Index, Section 2.3).
D. Wastewater Sampling Episodes
EPA collected several wastewater samples for chemical analysis
during sampling episodes at six airports to characterize pollutants
found in ADF-contaminated runoff, and to assess the performance of
treatment systems. The Agency conducted episodes at these six airports
in 2005 and 2006: Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, Detroit
Metropolitan Wayne County International Airport, Albany International
Airport, Denver International Airport, Greater Rockford (Illinois)
Airport, and Pittsburgh International Airport. At the first two
airports, EPA conducted one-day sampling episodes, to provide a general
characterization of wastewater from deicing operations. The subsequent
four events were multiple-day performance sampling episodes, which were
designed to document the performance of wastewater treatment systems.
For each analytical chemical class or parameter, EPA collected 24-
hour composite samples when possible, in order to capture the
variability in the waste streams containing ADF generated throughout
the day. EPA used the data from the laboratory analyses of these
samples to develop a list of pollutants of concern, and characterize
the raw wastewater at airports. EPA used the data collected from the
influent, intermediate, and effluent points to analyze the efficacy of
treatment at the facilities, and to develop current discharge
concentrations, loadings, and the treatment technology options for the
Airport Deicing effluent guideline. EPA used effluent data, along with
data provided by industry in the questionnaires and other sources, to
calculate the long-term averages and limitations for each of the
proposed regulatory options. During each sampling episode, EPA
collected flow rate data corresponding to each sample collected and
production information from each associated production system for use
in calculating pollutant loadings. EPA has included in the public
record all information collected for which a facility has not asserted
a claim of Confidential Business Information (CBI) or which would
indirectly reveal information claimed to be CBI.
After conducting the sampling episodes, EPA prepared sampling
episode reports for each facility. These reports included descriptions
of the wastewater treatment processes, sampling procedures, and
analytical results. EPA documented all data collected during sampling
episodes in the sampling episode report for each sampled site. Non-
confidential business information from these reports is available in
the public record for this proposal. For detailed information on
sampling and preservation procedures, analytical methods, and quality
assurance/quality control procedures see the Quality Assurance Project
Plans and the Sampling and Analysis Plans (Record Index, Section 2.4).
E. Other Data Collection
EPA collected other information from various other data sources
including: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits for information on current permit requirements; industry
correspondence on technology costs and long-term wastewater monitoring
data; and searches of technical and scientific literature, covering
current deicing practices and treatment technologies, current airport
deicing runoff data, chemical information and environmental impact
studies, and current stormwater regulations in the United States and
other countries.
F. Summary of Public Participation
EPA has met or corresponded with many airport and airline
representatives, citizen and environmental groups, vendors of deicing
chemicals and equipment, state permit agencies, other Federal agencies
and engineering consulting firms. The Agency has attended conferences
on airport deicing and has given presentations at several of those
conferences. Correspondence from these organizations about the proposed
rule is in the Record for the proposed rule.
VII. Technology Options, Costs, Wastewater Characteristics, and
Pollutant Reductions
A. Wastewater Sources and Wastewater Characteristics
1. Aircraft Deicing
Most ADF is applied 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.
Airlines typically purchase ADF in concentrated form (normalized) and
dilute it with water prior to spraying.
Most of the aircraft deicing fluid is Type I fluid, which is not
designed to adhere to aircraft surfaces. Consequently the majority of
Type I ADF is available for discharge due to dripping, overspraying,
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 pavements.
(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
[[Page 44686]]
storm drains discharge directly to waters of the United States 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 discharge.
For the purposes of this proposed rule, the pollutant loadings are
discussed in terms of applied ADF and how much of that is expected to
be discharged. A more detailed discussion of loadings estimates is
presented later in this section. 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 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, their 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, and generate BOD5 and COD load as well.
Most of EPA's sampling data does not include airfield pavement
deicers. However, EPA collected samples from a few locations at Detroit
Metro Airport that contain airfield deicing stormwater. Large hub
airports, both Detroit Metro and Pittsburgh, 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 variablity of storm events and
drainage systems make it difficult to estimate flows or concentrations
of pavement deicing waste streams generated at an airport.
B. Control and Treatment Technologies in the Aviation Industry
The ADF application process has presented a challenge for airports
attempting to manage their contaminated stormwater streams. The
airlines' process of applying ADF to aircraft through high pressure
spraying, combined with their typical practices of spraying the
aircraft outdoors in multiple, large unconfined (but usually
designated) spaces, results in pollutants being dispersed over a wide
area and entering storm drains at multiple locations. This process
contrasts sharply with many other industries where pollutants are
generated in confined areas, managed through a piping system, and not
commingled with precipitation.
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; however, EPA
has not identified any single technology that is capable of collecting
all applied ADF. Typically, ADF that is not captured becomes available
for discharge, either through an airport's drainage system, or from
shearing off the aircraft during takeoff.
Once the ADF wastestream is collected, it can be treated, and this
process is similar to many other industries that generate wastewater.
EPA identified four technologies available for treating ADF wastewater.
EPA also examined pollution prevention technologies, which can
reduce or eliminate use of ADF chemicals and urea for pavement deicing.
1. Aircraft Deicing Fluid Collection Technologies
a. Glycol Recovery Vehicle
A glycol recovery vehicle (GRV) is a truck that utilizes a vacuum
mechanism to gather stormwater contaminated with ADF resulting from
deicing operations. A GRV is a modular technology, in that collection
capacity can be increased by using additional units, without the
complicating factors of in-ground construction associated with some
other technologies. An airport may increase its overall ADF collection
capacity by purchasing or leasing larger units and/or additional units.
GRV trucks are typically stationed near the ADF spraying trucks and
are deployed either during aircraft deicing activities or, after the
aircraft deicing activity has completed. The truck then transports the
ADF-contaminated stormwater to an on-site storage facility, after which
the material is either treated at the airport or sent off site for
treatment. EPA estimates that GRVs typically capture approximately 20
percent of the available ADF when properly operated and maintained.
b. Plug and Pump
The plug-and-pump collection system involves simple alterations to
an airport's existing storm drain system, typically the insertion of
blocking plugs or similar devices in storm drains, combined with use of
GRVs, to contain and collect ADF-contaminated stormwater. Drainage
system modifications involve the placement of temporary blocking
devices at storm drain inlets, and/or installation of shutoff valves at
one or more points in the storm sewer system. Before a deicing event
begins, airport personnel activate the blocking devices, which trap the
ADF-contaminated stormwater in the collection system. After the deicing
activity ceases, the vacuum trucks pump the contaminated stormwater
from the storm sewer system and transport the liquid to on-site storage
and subsequent treatment. EPA estimates that plug-and-pump systems,
which incorporate GRVs, may capture approximately 40 percent of the
available ADF when properly operated and maintained.
c. Centralized Deicing Pads
A centralized deicing pad is a facility on an airfield built
specifically for aircraft deicing operations. It is typically a paved
area adjacent to a gate area, taxiway, or runway, and constructed with
a drainage system separate from the airport's main storm drain system.
It 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 on-site or off-site treatment facility.
Some airports use GRVs in combination with centralized deicing pads
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.
Centralized deicing pads reduce the volume of deicing wastewater by
restricting deicing to very small areas, and managing the captured
wastewater through a dedicated drain system. EPA estimates that central
deicing pads allow airports to capture about 60 percent of the
available ADF.
[[Page 44687]]
In addition, although the name implies a small collection area,
central pads designed to accommodate more than one commercial aircraft
generally encompass several acres. A deicing pad is specially graded
and designed to capture highly contaminated runoff, which can then be
sent to storage ponds, tanks or directly to treatment. By capturing
high concentrations of spent ADF, the feasibility of recycling
increases. Recovered glycol is typically sold to chemical manufacturers
for use in a variety of products, including coatings, paints, plastics
and polyester fibers.
d. Summary of ADF Collection Technology Usage
EPA estimates the number of airports that use each of the above
collection technologies in Table VII-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 VII-1--Estimated Totals of ADF Collection Technologies Used by
Airports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Collection technology airports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glycol Recovery Vehicle.................................... 53
Plug and Pump.............................................. 29
Centralized Deicing Pad.................................... 66
------------------------------------------------------------------------
See the Technical Development Document for further explanation of
EPA's estimates of the ADF capture rates for the fluid collection
technologies.
2. Wastewater Treatment and Recycling Technologies
EPA identified four potential BAT wastewater technologies. Two of
these technologies are biological in that they use microorganisms to
break down the glycol. The other two technologies are mechanical and
produce two wastestreams, one a high concentrated glycol stream, and
one that is primarily water for discharge. The high glycol stream can,
in some instances, be recycled and used for a variety of products.
There have been limited instances in the U.S. of recycled glycol used
for ADF formulation.
a. Anaerobic Fluidized Bed
An Anaerobic Fluidized Bed (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, carbon
dioxide and new biomass (animal material, e.g. bacteria).
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 removed over 98
percent of BOD5, over 97 percent of COD, and over 99 percent
of propylene glycol from the wastestream. This reduced 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 County Airport in Albany, New York, and Akron-
Canton Regional Airport, Akron, Ohio.
b. Ultrafiltration/Reverse Osmosis
Ultrafiltration/Reverse Osmosis (UF/RO) technology filters ADF-
contaminated stormwater at a high temperature (75 [deg]C) using an
ultrafiltration membrane as its first stage. Next, the deicing fluid
(filtrate) can be dewatered using a reverse osmosis membrane as a
second stage. Since the ultrafiltration membrane is effective at
removing contaminants, the RO stage is used for dewatering and glycol
separation. This process produces a glycol-laden stream that can be
distilled in an additional stage to increase its glycol concentration.
Concentrated glycol streams can be recycled as a feedstock in chemical
manufacturing. The effluent from the UF/RO system contains small
amounts of glycol, carbonaceous BOD (cBOD) and COD, and can either be
discharged to surface water, or sent to a POTW for further treatment.
Based on EPA sampling results, the RO treatment system successfully
removed over 99 percent of BOD5, over 99 percent of COD, and
over 99 percent of propylene glycol. UF/RO technology is used at
Pittsburgh International Airport.
c. Mechanical Vapor Recompression and Distillation
Mechanical Vapor Recompression (MVR) followed by distillation is
typically used when glycol concentrations in ADF-contaminated
stormwater are greater than 5 percent. This type of a system is not
generally practical for lower concentration glycol contaminated
stormwater, which would typically be discharged directly to a POTW for
treatment. The MVR/distillation technology generates a concentrated
glycol stream (containing greater than 99 percent glycol) that can be
sold as a chemical feedstock. The effluent from the MVR/distillation
system contains propylene glycol, cBOD and COD and it must be
discharged to a POTW for further treatment.
MVR and distillation is used at Denver International Airport for
recycle and recovery of spent ADF. The system first treats ADF-
contaminated stormwater using the MVRs, which increase the glycol
concentration to approximately 40 percent. Effluent from the MVRs is
then treated by distillation to increase the glycol concentration to
approximately 99 percent. The glycol product is passed through
polishing filters to remove residual contaminants allowing for resale
of the product as a chemical feedstock. Overheads (distillate) from
both the MVRs and distillation columns contain propylene glycol and
they are sent to a POTW for additional treatment.
Based on EPA sampling results, the MVR/Distillation treatment
system successfully removed over 93 percent of BOD5, over 97
percent of COD, and over 98 percent of propylene glycol.
d. Aerated Pond
An aerated pond uses mechanical aerators either to inject air into
the wastewater or to cause violent agitation of wastewater and air in
order to achieve oxygen transfer to the wastewater. Bacteria are
suspended in the wastewater, and aid in the biodegradation of glycol.
Contaminated stormwater is retained in the detention pond during the
deicing season and discharged later, after microorganisms present in
the pond have biodegraded the glycols. The detention pond is monitored
and nutrients are added, pH is adjusted, and anti-foaming agents are
added as needed. The biodegradation of glycol is temperature-dependant
and predominantly occurs during the spring and early summer months when
ambient temperatures are higher. When the BOD5 concentration
has been sufficiently reduced, the volume is discharged to surface
waters.
Based on EPA sampling results, the aerated pond treatment system
successfully removed 100 percent of BOD5, and over 93
percent of COD. An aerated pond system is currently in use
[[Page 44688]]
at Greater Rockford Airport, in Rockford, Illinois.
3. Pollution Prevention Technologies
EPA has identified several technologies that reduce ADF usage to
some extent while safely deicing aircraft, and one applicable to
airfield pavement deicing, that are in use at airports across the
United States. However, there are limited data on the actual pollutant
reductions that these technologies may achieve. While the effectiveness
or cost-effectiveness of these technologies has not been documented,
these technologies can reduce the amount of deicing chemicals required
to deicing aircraft and airfields. The reduction of chemicals will not
only have a positive environmental effect, but may also be cost-
effective, as the decrease in costs of purchased deicing chemicals may
offset the cost of the technology itself.
a. Infrared Deicing Systems
A few U.S. airports have used infrared (IR) heating systems for
several years. The systems have been demonstrated to deice aircraft
effectively, which substantially reduces ADF usage. 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. Since the aircraft surfaces are dry, the volume
of anti-icing fluid required is less than for typical anti-icing
operations. 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 greatly
reduces the volume required.
Documents provided by a vendor describe use of an IR system that
reduces the amount of Type I ADF required by up to 90 percent. Two
large hub airports, Newark Liberty International, Newark, New Jersey,
and John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York, use IR systems for
some of their flights. If this technology can be applied widely, it may
prove to be a highly effective means of reducing ADF pollution.
EPA has not obtained substantial data documenting the amount of
reduced glycol usage from use of IR systems, nor information on the
availability of the technology for broader or industry-wide
installation. EPA is interested in receiving any available data on
those topics to documenting IR costs including (e.g., the capital costs
of installing an IR facility, operating and maintenance costs,
especially energy costs, glycol used during deicing and siting/sizing
requirements for an IR facility). Because IR is not widely available or
used, EPA does not propose to identify IR as an available technology
for purposes of establishing ELGs. However, the Agency may reconsider
this technology, if sufficient data support a conclusion that this
technology is available. Specifically, EPA would require information
proving that IR is an available technology for a sufficient percentage
of an airports total deicing activity, as well as information on the
amount of time required for deicing, as well as any sizing and siting
requirements for placing an IR facility.
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
gpm), 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.
A similar method to truck-mounted forced-air systems is the double
gantry forced-air spray system. 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.
In the field of airfield pavement deicers, several types of
products are available as alternatives to glycol-based and urea-based
deicers, such as potassium acetate, sodium formate and sodium acetate.
d. Transportation Research Board Report
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 (ACRP), titled
``Deicing Planning Guidelines and Practices for Stormwater Management
Systems.'' This report (DCN AD01191) and the fact sheets (DCN AD01192)
are in the docket for today's proposed rule.
C. Pollutants of Concern
Airport deicing stormwater is generated when airfield and aircraft
deicing/anti-icing chemicals mix with snow, freezing precipitation or
rainwater. In addition, other airport-related activities, including
aircraft fueling and maintenance activities, may contribute pollutants
to stormwater. Because of the difficulties in characterizing airport
deicing stormwater, EPA evaluated pollutants detected in the
stormwater, pollutants present in source water (i.e., prior to
contamination with ADF), and pollutants that are present in ADF prior
to use to determine which pollutants are present in deicing stormwater.
The primary source of information used to identify potential pollutants
of concern from deicing stormwater was EPA's sampling episodes,
detailed in Section VI, as well as information presented in available
NPDES permits and the Airport Questionnaire.
1. Aircraft Deicers
EPA, through its review of sampling data, discussions with experts
in the field of chemical deicers, and review of NPDES permits,
identified over 90 pollutants associated with ADF-contaminated
stormwater.
EPA shortened the list of pollutants to those that were directly
associated with aircraft deicing. This was done by reviewing
information provided by
[[Page 44689]]
experts and excluding pollutants that were thought to be associated
with one of the following sources; source water, aircraft and vehicle
fueling operations, maintenance-related operations, or runoff from
building roofs.
Having identified pollutants that are present in airport deicing
stormwater, the Agency next needed to consider which pollutants should
be controlled. EPA did not consider a pollutant as a potential
pollutant of concern if it possesses the following characteristics:
The pollutant is present in the deicing stormwater from a
source other than deicing chemical use;
The pollutant is discharged in relatively small amounts
and is neither causing nor likely to cause toxic effects;
The pollutant is detected in the effluent from only a
small number of airports and is uniquely related to those facilities;
or
The pollutant cannot be analyzed by EPA-approved or other
established methods.
2. Airfield Deicers
While field information on the constituents of airfield deicing and
anti-icing chemicals is scarce, EPA determined which chemicals are
commonly used based on the Airport Questionnaire responses. EPA did not
identify an available technology to collect and treat pavement deicing
pollutants, and therefore did not collect wastewater samples from
pavement deicing discharges. Some of the most common airfield deicing
and anti-icing chemicals include potassium acetate, sodium acetate,
urea, sodium formate, and glycols.
3. Summary
After reviewing these criteria, EPA identified 21 chemicals or
parameters as pollutants of concern. Based on our knowledge of usage
volumes, and known effects, EPA focused on the glycols in ADF fluids,
and the ammonia in urea-based pavement deicers. Section VII.D.2 below
discusses how EPA determined which of these pollutants of concern
should become regulated pollutants in today's proposed rule. See the
TDD and the EIB for further discussion of pollutants of concern.
D. Options Considered for Proposal
Current airport deicing operations involve application of chemicals
to both aircraft and airfield pavement. ADF may be dispersed over a
large area due to the high-pressure spraying process used with aircraft
as well as shearing during aircraft taxiing and takeoff. Pavement
chemicals, while not sprayed at high pressure, are nonetheless
similarly dispersed over a large area, namely runways, taxiways and
aprons. The deicing chemicals mix with stormwater and are conveyed
through a combination of overland flow and conveyance structures
(ditches and pipes). At some airports, the contaminated stormwater is
discharged untreated directly to waters of the United States. At other
airports, the wastewater is treated before discharge, sent to a POTW or
off-site waste contractor, and/or discharged to groundwater.
In order to reduce discharges of untreated ADF wastewater for this
industry, EPA concluded that the best available technology would need
to include two basic components. The first component is a requirement
to capture (collect) a certain percentage of available ADF. The second
component is a requirement to treat the collected ADF to meet specified
end-of-pipe discharge limitations. In many other industrial sectors,
wastewater is typically generated and handled in confined systems such
as reactors, pipes and pumps. Wastewater flows are carefully managed in
these systems, and under normal operations all wastewater is directed
to the facility's treatment system or to a POTW. In aircraft deicing
operations, the chemicals are sprayed outdoors in a comparatively
unconfined, usually designated setting, and there is a high likelihood
that some pollutants will bypass the treatment system. Setting a
minimum collection rate in the proposed rule, based on available
technology, will require an airport to reduce significantly its level
of uncontrolled discharges in an economically achievable manner.
1. Regulated Facilities
Early in the regulatory development process, EPA focused on deicing
activities at primary airports, particularly those with extensive jet
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 survey results, EPA estimated that 320 primary
commercial airports conduct deicing operations. Any effluent guidelines
that EPA might develop for these airports must be ``economically
achievable'' as required by the CWA, so the Agency proceeded to analyze
various industry characteristics that would be an indicator of
affordability for the candidate control and treatment technologies.
This included a review of the relative sizes of various airports (based
on annual departures), the levels of deicing activity, traffic
characteristics (i.e., passenger vs. cargo operations), the extent of
pollution controls and treatment in place, and the costs of various
technologies. EPA further classified airports based on the number of
annual jet departures. EPA found that there were some primary airports,
typically smaller airports, with high percentages of non-jet traffic,
and so it excluded airports with 1,000 or fewer annual jet 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). The Agency estimated that the remaining
218 largest primary airports account for approximately 85 percent of
the deicing fluid used nationally, and including these airports in the
scope of today's proposed rule is economically achievable. Moreover,
not applying the 1,000 annual jet departure cutoff would only increase
the volume of deicing fluid that is within the scope of today's
proposed rule by 1 to 2 percent yet would potentially result in high
costs to smaller airports that have minimal pollutant contributions.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to establish this exclusion because it
avoids projected significant adverse economic impacts on this segment
of the industry without excluding from the national standards a
significant pollutant load.
2. Regulated Pollutants
As described in Section VII.C, EPA identified 21 pollutants of
concern that stem directly from airport deicing operations. EPA
estimates, however, that many of these pollutants, such as metals, are
generally present in airport stormwater discharges irrespective of
deicing activities that are taking place. These pollutants would be
also present in discharges at airports where no deicing takes place and
as such are beyond the scope of today's proposed rule.
EPA determined that pollutants directly associated with aircraft
deicing chemicals could be associated with an indicator pollutant.
Initially, both COD and BOD5 were identified as possible
indicator parameters. The Agency determined that COD is the best
indicator for the following reasons:
COD captures the oxygen demand from nitrogen and other
organic components of the contaminated
[[Page 44690]]
stormwater that may not be represented in a BOD5 analytical
result.
Toxic aircraft deicing fluid additive compounds in deicing
stormwater may have a negative and variable impact on the acclimation
of the active cultures used in BOD5 analysis, making that
method less accurate than a COD analysis.
COD analyses are simple to conduct and can be measured in
real time, compared to the 5-day test required by the BOD5
analytical method.
The COD analytical method does not require measurement of
the receiving water temperature.
Further discussion of analytical methods is provided in a memorandum,
``Regulation of COD for Airport Deicing Operations'' (DCN AD00845) in
the docket for today's proposed rule.
While EPA has an understanding generally of ADF composition--i.e.,
each product is a glycol-based compound with several additives--deicing
fluid manufacturers did not provide us with information on specific ADF
formulations. These manufacturers declined several requests to provide
information on formulations, citing concerns about confidential
business information. EPA has learned about a number of the additives,
but not necessarily their concentration, from other sources. Because of
incomplete information on these ADF additives, EPA is not proposing
numeric effluent limits for any of these additives.
Ammonia is the principal pollutant generated by urea-based pavement
deicers, and EPA determined that ammonia is an appropriate indicator
pollutant for urea-based airfield pavement deicers.
See the TDD and EIB for further information on regulated
pollutants.
3. Technology Options Considered for Basis of Regulation
The effluent limitations that EPA is proposing to establish today
are based on well-designed, well-operated collection and treatment
systems. Below is a summary of the technology basis for the proposed
limitations and the alternative options considered by the Agency. As is
the case for any effluent guideline containing numeric effluent
limitations, a facility would be able to use any combination of
wastewater treatment technologies and pollution prevention strategies
at the facility to meet effluent limitations.
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 take 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 EPA, in developing effluent
guidelines, to 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 the proposed rule, EPA considered whether
subcategorizing the aviation industry was warranted. EPA evaluated a
number of factors and potential subcategorization approaches, including
the presence of an on-site glycol reclamation facility, amount of ADF
applied, number of departures, availability of land to install
collection systems, and FAA airport classifications.
Establishing formal subcategories is not necessary for the Airport
Deicing category because the proposed rule is structured to address the
relevant factors (i.e., amount of ADF applied and number of departures)
and establish a set of requirements that encompasses the range of
situations that an airport may encounter during deicing operations.
Both the aircraft deicing and pavement deicing requirements include an
airport size threshold, which excludes smaller facilities. The use of a
performance standard, as compared to a technology specification,
provides flexibility for airports in meeting the requirements. EPA is
proposing to establish a set of effluent limitations that take into
account the factors that EPA determined are relevant for
subcategorizing this point source category.
b. Aircraft Deicing
EPA is proposing capture and treatment requirements for spent ADF.
EPA is not aware of an available and economically achievable technology
that is capable of capturing 100 percent of the spent ADF, and
therefore the Agency is focusing on collection technologies and their
efficacy.
i. ADF Collection
The available technologies for collecting ADF--glycol recovery
vehicles, plug-and-pump equipment, and deicing pads--are described
above. EPA evaluated various different combinations of these collection
technologies for different-sized airports. See Table VII-2. These
various options were developed to represent a wide range of collection
requirements and corresponding costs. EPA's objective was to find a
combination of requirements that would result in the greatest level of
pollutant removals while still being economically achievable.
Specifically, EPA finds that the number of aircraft departures is
an appropriate criterion for grouping airports by size and applying
different collection requirements to the various size groups. EPA's
review of airline and airport deicing practices revealed that the
amount of ADF required to deice a single aircraft varies widely. This
is primarily due to the type of weather conditions to which an aircraft
is exposed, or aircraft size. However, the Agency has concluded that an
airport's overall ADF usage level directly correlates to the amount of
wastewater generated and pollutant loadings. Because direct ADF usage
data were not available for every airport, EPA determined that the
annual number of aircraft departures at an airport, considered
simultaneously with precipitation data, is a reliable predictor of ADF
usage, based on extrapolations of data provided in the questionnaires.
Based on the available technologies, EPA developed four ADF
collection options as listed in Table VII-2 below as candidates for
identification as best available technology for the collection of ADF.
Table VII-2--ADF Collection Technology Options Considered for BAT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement (applies
to primary airports Estimated
Option with more than 1,000 airports in Technology basis
annual jet departures) scope
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........... 20% ADF Capture 110............. Glycol recovery
(Airports w/10,000 or vehicle (GRV).
more annual
departures).
[[Page 44691]]
2........... 40% ADF Capture 110............. Plug & Pump.
(Airports w/10,000 or
more annual
departures).
3........... 60% ADF Capture 110 (14 @ 60% + Centralized
(Airports w/460,000 96 @ 20%). Deicing Pad +
gals. or more annual GRV.
ADF usage and 10,000
or more departures) +
20% ADF Capture
(Airports w/10,000 or
more annual
departures and less
than 460,000 gals.
annual ADF usage).
4........... 60% ADF Capture 218 (14 @ 60% + Centralized
(Airports w/460,000 204 @ 20%). Deicing Pad +
gals. or more ADF GRV.
usage) + 20% ADF
Capture (Airports w/
1,000 or more jet
departures).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All references to ADF are for normalized ADF, which is ADF less
any water added by the manufacturer or customer before ADF
application.
Not all airports estimated to be in the scope of this proposed rule
would incur ADF collection costs under it, because many of these
airports already have ADF collection systems in place (Section VIII.C
below). For example, of the estimated 14 airports that would have to
meet the 60 percent ADF collection requirement in this proposal, seven
already have installed deicing pads that would capture at least 60
percent of the ADF.
ii. Treatment
All airports subject to the ADF collection requirement would also
be required to treat their ADF wastewater prior to discharge, unless
they send this wastewater to a POTW or commercial treatment/recycle
facility. EPA examined the four wastewater treatment technologies
described above in Section VII.B.2 as candidates for the model BAT
technology.
Under this proposal, the collected ADF wastewater would need to be
treated to a specified numeric effluent limit for COD. This limit would
be based on the long-term averages of effluent from the treatment
system identified at BAT (see Section VII.E.2 below).
Further discussion of other ADF treatment technologies that EPA
considered can be found in the TDD.
c. Airfield Pavement Deicing
In general, airports discharge airfield pavement deicing chemicals
without treatment due to the difficulty and expense required in
collecting and treating the large volumes of contaminated stormwater
generated on paved airfield surfaces. EPA is not aware of an available,
economically achievable means for controlling these pollutants through
collection and use of a conventional, end-of-pipe treatment system. It
may be 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 as the primary
pollutant of concern from airfield deicing, while COD from airfield
deicing is also a pollutant of concern, and both of these pollutants
are a byproduct of urea-based pavement deicers.
Accordingly, to address discharges of ammonia from airfield
pavement, EPA identified one candidate for best available technology,
namely, discontinuing the use of urea-based pavement deicers and using
alternative pavement deicers instead. EPA researched product
substitution for urea-based deicers and found that airfield pavement
deicers other than urea are widely available in the market and that
these alternate deicers do not produce ammonia. Eighty-nine percent of
primary airports currently use airfield pavement deicers that do not
contain urea. The most widely used substitute product, potassium
acetate, accounts for 64 percent (by weight) of the annual airfield
pavement deicer usage in the U.S. Urea stood out as an airfield deicer
that was not predominantly used in the industry to begin with. Where it
is still used, one of the main reasons for its use appears to be low
cost compared to other products. Alternatives to urea are available
that are equally effective and safe, and would greatly reduce
discharges of ammonia from airfield deicing. These alternative airfield
deicers include potassium acetate, sodium formate and sodium acetate.
In suggesting these alternative deicers, EPA considered environmental
impacts and safety issues. The Agency solicits specific data on those
issues. EPA has also determined that the use of substitute airfield
deicers would be economically achievable in the industry (see Section
VIII below).
Discontinuing the use of urea-based deicers would greatly reduce
ammonia discharges from airfield runoff, but it would not eliminate
them entirely because of the background levels of ammonia present in
the general runoff from airfields. One method of ensuring that airports
discontinue use of urea-based airfield deicers is to require them to
certify that they use an alternative deicer. Alternatively, EPA could
set a numeric BAT limit on ammonia based on no use of urea that
accounts for the remaining sources of ammonia in airport discharges.
Product substitution would also result in significant reductions of COD
discharges. See the further discussion of this issue in the options
selection discussion in the next section below.
E. BAT Options Selection
EPA is proposing to identify Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable based on Option 3 in Table VII-2. Specifically, this BAT
option has the following three components: collection of ADF sprayed
onto aircraft based on either GRV or deicing pads (depending on the
amount of ADF used), treatment of the collected ADF, if appropriate,
based on anaerobic fluidized bed technology, and certification of non-
urea-based airfield pavement deicing.
Under Option 3, all primary airports that have over 1,000 annual
jet departures and 10,000 or more annual departures would be required
to collect at least 20 percent of all available spent ADF. This
collection requirement is based on the estimated performance of glycol
recovery vehicles. A subset of this group, those primary airports that
have more than 1,000 annual jet departures, 10,000 or more annual
departures and use 460,000 or more gallons of normalized ADF annually,
would be required to collect at least 60 percent of all available spent
ADF. (As defined at proposed Sec. 449.2, normalized ADF is ADF less
any water added by the manufacturer or customer before ADF
application.) This collection requirement is based on the estimated
performance of centralized deicing pads, which are present at 8 of the
14
[[Page 44692]]
primary airports currently meeting the departure/annualized ADF usage
criteria noted above. Primary airports with less than 10,000 annual
departures would not be required to collect or treat their spent
deicing fluid.
The proposed rule would reduce pollutant discharges by 44.6 million
pounds annually, comprised of 39.9 million pounds of COD (from both ADF
and urea reductions) and 4.7 million pounds of ammonia (from urea
alone). The proposed BAT requirements for ADF would reduce the aviation
industry's discharges of COD associated with ADF by 27.9 million pounds
per year. This represents almost a 22 percent reduction in discharges
of ADF-correlated COD relative to current practices used by airlines
and airports that conduct deicing. Additionally, the proposed BAT
requirements for airfield pavement deicing would reduce discharges of
COD (from urea deicers) by 12.7 million pounds per year, and reduce
discharges of ammonia by 4.7 million pounds per year.
EPA finds that the proposed BAT technologies are generally
available to be installed or used by those in the industry. Further, as
will be discussed in more detail in Section VIII below, EPA has
determined that the proposed BAT technologies are economically
achievable. The Agency also examined the non-water quality
environmental impacts of the rule and found them to be acceptable. The
technology basis for each requirement--ADF collection, treatment of the
collected ADF, and non-urea-based airfield pavement deicing--is
discussed below.
1. ADF Collection
For each of the four options in Table VII-2, EPA finds that the
collection technology is widely available to the industry. See the
summary of collection technologies used by airports in Table VII-1. EPA
finds that for the top fourteen airports in terms of annual ADF usage,
collection of ADF based on the use of deicing pads is technologically
available. EPA's record indicates that at least seven of the fourteen
airports already have installed deicing pads. For the remaining seven,
EPA examined what appeared to be the most land-constrained airports and
using a formula based on number of departures and number of runways,
estimated the amount of land that would be required for installation of
deicing pads. EPA then reviewed airport site plans provided in the
questionnaires and determined that these constrained airports have
sufficient land to install the necessary collection technologies. See
the TDD for further discussion on the estimated land availability for
deicing pads. Therefore, the Agency determined that economic
achievability is the controlling factor in identifying which option
represents BAT for collection of ADF.
EPA rejected Option 2, Plug-and-Pump technology, as a basis for BAT
for ADF collection. Although Plug-and-Pump is estimated to capture 40
percent of spent ADF, as compared to the other options considered, the
equipment has comparatively high operating and maintenance costs. In
many cases, EPA estimated that Plug-and-Pump costs would be higher than
the cost of deicing pads for a comparable airport, yet deicing pads
achieve greater pollutant removals than Plug-and-Pump. Overall, Option
2 achieves lower levels of pollutant removals, and it would impose
higher costs than Option 3. Therefore, EPA finds that Option 2 is not
the best available technology for ADF collection.
Of the remaining options, Options 1 and 3 are economically
achievable while Option 4 is not. Therefore, EPA proposes to identify
Option 3 as BAT because it achieves the greatest level of pollutant
removals among the remaining options and is economically achievable by
the industry. The 60 percent ADF capture and treatment standard for the
14 airports at which the largest ADF usage occurs is expected to result
in approximately a 70 percent increase in pollutant removals compared
to Option 1 (an increase from 26.4 million pounds to 44.6 million
pounds of COD and ammonia removals; see Section 13 of the TDD). Thus,
EPA projects that Option 3 will result in significantly greater
pollutant removals but little increase in the economic impacts of the
rule compared to Option 1. Under Option 3, only two additional airports
would incur costs beyond Option 1 that would exceed 3 percent of
operating revenue. These two airports are among the largest airports in
the U.S. and therefore have the greatest ability to take on these
additional costs without undue financial burden. See Section VIII below
for EPA's analysis of economic achievability.
Although EPA's analysis indicates that airports have sufficient
land to install deicing pads, the Agency invites commenters to provide
site-specific data and documentation on any space limitations that
would affect an airport's ability to install deicing pads, along with
recommendations for alternative ADF collection techniques if deicing
pads are not feasible.
EPA is also proposing to allow credit for facilities that might
adopt new technologies, such as infrared heating, that use less ADF,
but may not change the percent of ADF captured. See proposed Sec.
449.20(b)(2)(i)(C).
2. Treatment
The Agency proposes to identify Anaerobic Fluidized Bed (AFB) as
the best available treatment technology for reductions of COD. EPA
finds this technology to be widely available to the industry. It is
currently in use at two hub airports, Albany International (New York)
and Akron-Canton Regional (Ohio).
The other three wastewater treatment technologies that EPA
considered were less effective at pollutant removal compared to AFB
systems. In addition, treating spent ADF with the mechanical methods,
UF/RO and MVR/DC results in a concentrated waste stream that also must
be disposed of. While these technologies have potential as a part of an
airport's pollutant control strategy, they are not as effective as AFB
when used as stand-alone treatment options, i.e. the pollutant removals
they achieve are not as great as the removals achieved by AFB systems.
The second biological control option, the aerated pond, was not
selected as the technology basis for BAT for mainly logistical reasons.
The ponds require large areas for installation, and the normal
operations of these systems require treatment for many months after the
end of the annual deicing season, before the wastewater can be
discharged. Additionally, FAA discourages the installation of new
stormwater detention ponds at airports, as they can be a lure for
migratory birds. In those situations, birds and aircraft are safety
hazards to each other. For airports with existing detention ponds,
however, where adequate storage capacity is available, aerated pond
systems may be able to provide efficient treatment that meets the
standard.
EPA has determined that AFB, as the proposed best available
treatment technology for reductions of COD, will also achieve
significant reductions of many of the other known pollutants associated
with ADF, including 97 percent removal of propylene and ethylene
glycol. The AFB treatment system removes over 75 percent of many
phenol-ethoxylate compounds as well. Moreover, choosing to set a
numeric limit on COD provides an approach that is both effective and is
relatively easier and more inexpensive for airports to comply with than
a numeric limit on glycols, the active ingredient of aircraft deicing
fluids, would be. Monitoring costs for COD are modest relative to some
other parameters considered by EPA. Permittees may conduct
[[Page 44693]]
monitoring with the use of portable COD meters, which provide
immediate, real-time information on the efficacy of their treatment
systems and facilitate timely adjustments of system operation where
necessary. Overall, EPA's economic analysis shows that the use of AFB
technology for treating spent ADF would be economically achievable in
the industry. See Section VIII below for more information on economic
achievability.
3. Airfield Pavement Deicers
In addition to the requirements that EPA is proposing for ADF
sprayed onto airplanes, EPA is also proposing today to identify BAT for
the control of deicers that are applied directly to airfield pavement
areas. Specifically, as described in Section VIII.D.3, for airfield
pavement deicers, EPA is proposing to identify a BAT of discontinuing
use of urea-based pavement deicers in favor of alternative, less toxic
products that are not harmful to aircraft. Thus, BAT would be based on
product substitution rather than treatment of the wastestream that runs
off from airfield pavements. To demonstrate that they have used only
non-urea based pavement deicers, permittees would be required to submit
a certification to that effect.
EPA considered two possible methods for eliminating discharges of
ammonia associated with the application of urea-based pavement deicers.
One option would be to set a performance-based numeric limit on
discharges of ammonia that could be met by using non-urea-based
deicers. A second option would require airports to certify that they do
not use urea-based airfield deicing products. EPA is proposing today to
adopt the certification option. EPA is proposing the certification
because it ensures compliance while minimizing compliance costs.
Certification allows a facility to demonstrate compliance with this
product substitution-based BAT without the expense of conducting
monitoring activities. Collecting and analyzing samples of airfield
runoff would also present significant practical difficulties. Measuring
ammonia discharges from airfield pavement is generally difficult due to
the design of airport drainage systems. Wastestreams from multiple
areas of an airport may be combined into a single pipe, which
complicates the calculation of pollutant concentrations. In addition,
the ``building block'' approach, which has been used to calculate
combined wastestream concentrations for other industrial categories, is
generally very difficult to perform at airports, due to the variability
and unpredictability of the volume of stormwater runoff. Therefore, as
a practical matter, a permittee who wanted to take samples and
demonstrate compliance with a numeric limit for ammonia would need to
show that the ammonia limit is met for all deicing runoff, not just
airfield discharges.
While EPA is proposing to identify product substitution as BAT, in
order to allow flexibility to regulated facilities, the Agency is also
proposing a compliance alternative to the certification requirement.
This provision would accommodate facilities that might wish to continue
using urea-based deicers and install treatment to eliminate urea-based
ammonia discharges instead. Facilities that elect to comply using the
compliance alternative would be required to monitor and comply with a
proposed ammonia limit. To establish the proposed compliance
alternative limitation for ammonia, the Agency had to take into account
the ammonia that is a by-product of an AFB wastewater treatment system.
This is because AFB discharges could have higher ammonia concentrations
than that of background levels found in airfield runoff. While this
results in a proposed compliance alternative ammonia effluent limit
higher than concentrations in airfield runoff where AFB technologies
are not used, the Agency estimates that these concentrations are lower
than those from airfield pavement discharges where urea-based deicers
are used. See ``Evaluation of Proposed Compliance Alternative Ammonia
Limitations with Respect to Airport Deicing Stormwater Typical Ammonia
Discharges,'' DCN AD01194, for additional discussion.
Although EPA has developed compliance alternative ammonia effluent
limitations for this proposal, it estimates that the cost associated
with capturing and treating these waste streams would be prohibitively
high for most airports. Therefore, EPA anticipates that most or all
airports would choose the certification option rather than the ammonia
numeric limits option in order to avoid compliance monitoring. EPA
requests comment on implementation challenges associated with and the
extent to which regulated facilities may select the compliance
alternative. To the extent that comments indicate the compliance
alternative would not be utilized, EPA might not include it in the
final rule.
F. NSPS
EPA evaluated which technologies should be identified as the ``best
available demonstrated control technologies'' for purposes of setting
new source performance standards under CWA section 306. Among the
collection technologies that EPA considered, deicing pads capture the
greatest level of available ADF and are widely available in the
industry. Among the treatment technologies considered, treatment of the
captured ADF with an anaerobic fluidized bed system represents the
greatest level of removals of the pollutants of concern and is widely
available for use in connection with new airports and new runways at
existing airports. In considering economic impacts, EPA believes that a
standard based on the use of deicing pads for ADF collection followed
by treatment with an AFB system would not represent a barrier to entry
for new sources in this industry. See the economic analysis discussion
in Section VIII. Accordingly, EPA proposes to base NSPS for aircraft
deicing on these technologies. As with the BAT requirement for existing
sources, the proposed NSPS would require dischargers to collect 60
percent of available spent ADF, and treat the collected wastewater to a
specified numeric limit for COD.
Additionally, EPA considered which technology should be considered
the basis for setting NSPS with respect to airfield deicing. EPA
determined that, just as with existing sources, all new sources would
be capable of eliminating the use of urea for airfield deicing in favor
of substitute deicing products. Product substitution represents the
greatest level of reduction in ammonia among the available technologies
considered and product substitution does not appear to represent a
barrier to entry. See the economic analysis discussion in Section VIII.
Accordingly, EPA proposes to identify elimination of urea followed by
product substitution of non-urea-based airfield deicers as the best
demonstrated available control technology for purposes of all new
sources.
Based on this identified technology, all new sources would be
required to meet the same certification requirement proposed for BAT.
In addition, as proposed today for existing sources, EPA proposes the
same compliance alternative ammonia effluent limitations for new
sources.
For the purpose of this regulation, EPA proposes that a ``New
Source'' would include, first, a new airport. The cost of construction
of even small airports is significantly greater than the costs
associated with collection and/or treatment of spent deicing fluids.
Accordingly, meeting the new source requirements proposed today would
not be a barrier to entry for them
[[Page 44694]]
economically. See further discussion in Section VIII below.
In addition, EPA proposes to specify that a new runway at an
existing airport is also a new source. EPA anticipates that few new
airports will be constructed in the foreseeable future, and that most
of the anticipated increase in airport capacity will be accomplished
through the expansion of existing airports. The term ``new source'' is
defined in EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.2 and 122.29. EPA proposes to
specify in the final rule that a new runway meets the terms of those
regulations for being defined as a new source, because in EPA's view a
new runway is a ``structure, facility or installation from which there
is or may be a discharge of pollutants'' (Sec. Sec. 122.2 and
122.29(a)(2)) and because a new runway is ``substantially independent
of an existing source at the same site'' (Sec. 122.29(b)(iii)). EPA
does not believe in general that new runways will be significantly
integrated with existing airport facilities in a way that should
prevent them from being identified as new sources (see Sec.
122.29(b)(iii)). In addition, it is possible that permit authorities,
on a case-by-case basis, would be able to deem other types of
construction activity for aircraft movement areas to constitute a new
source as well. For example, a permit authority might deem the
substantial improvement or replacement of an existing runway to be a
new source if that activity is deemed to ``totally replace the process
or production equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants'' (see
Sec. 122.29(b)(ii)). In all of the situations discussed above, the new
runway or other runway construction activity would be deemed to be a
new source only if it meets all of the criteria in the regulations
cited above for definition as a new source.
G. BPT and BCT
The CWA provides for two increasingly stringent levels of
technology-based controls on discharges of pollutants. See EPA v.
National Crushed Stone Association, 449 U.S. 64 (1980). BPT represents
the first level of control applicable to all pollutants. BCT and BAT
represent the second level of control for conventional and toxic/
nonconventional pollutants, respectively. EPA considered whether in
this rule, it was necessary to establish BPT and BCT limits, given that
ADF and pavement deicing fluid will be controlled at the more stringent
BAT level. Because the BAT controls in this rule also control the same
pollutants as would be controlled by BPT or BCT limits, it is not
necessary for EPA to analyze options and propose BPT and BCT effluent
limitation guidelines for the Airport Deicing Category. EPA recognizes
that it has proposed, in the past, all three levels of control, BPT,
BCT and BAT for various industries even where the same pollutants and
wastestream were at issue. In this rule however, the Agency solicits
comments on this approach because it represents significant resource
savings for EPA in terms of analysis and rulemaking process while not
sacrificing any environmental protection. Additionally, EPA is not
establishing BCT limitations for this industry because these
limitations apply only to conventional pollutants such as
BOD5 and total suspended solids and this effluent guideline
regulates only non-conventional pollutants (chiefly COD and ammonia).
H. Pretreatment Standards
Some airports in the U.S. discharge ADF-contaminated runoff to
POTWs. EPA does not have any information indicating that POTWs
currently have problems of pollutant pass-through, interference or
sludge contamination stemming from these discharges. For this reason,
the Agency is not proposing PSES or PSNS. EPA is aware that high
concentration or ``slug'' discharges of deicing wastewater can create
POTW upset, and many of the airports that discharge to POTWs have
airport-specific requirements on allowable BOD5 or COD
discharge loading per day. They may also have requirements for
discharging at various concentration levels over time. Airports usually
meet this requirement by storing deicing stormwater in ponds or tanks
and metering the discharge to meet the POTW permit requirements.
I. Compliance Costs
1. Overview
EPA estimated industry-wide compliance costs for this proposed
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.
EPA estimated compliance costs associated with today's proposal
using data collected through survey responses, site visits, sampling
episodes, specific airport requests and information supplied by
vendors. As applicable, EPA estimated the costs for an airport to
comply with today's proposal initially, as well as maintaining
equipment and performing required monitoring or other activities to
demonstrate ongoing compliance. These costs may include upgrading/
installing and operating a collection system and/or a treatment system,
chemical analysis for compliance as well as the costs associated with
substituting potassium acetate in place of urea as a chemical airfield
deicer. EPA's cost estimates represent the incremental costs for a
facility when its existing practices would not lead to compliance with
today's proposed rule.
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 (2002-2005) 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. For example, if an airport installed a deicing
pad in 2005, EPA's costing estimates would reflect any incremental
changes required above the current ADF collection rate, to meet the
collection rate in the proposed rule.
2. Approach for Developing Aircraft Deicing Costs
Under this proposed rule, an airport would be required to collect a
percentage of its sprayed ADF, and treat that wastewater to comply with
numeric effluent limitations. EPA estimated the costs for an airport to
comply with collection and treatment requirements, as well as
performing required monitoring to demonstrate compliance. These costs
include estimates of upgrading airports' current collection systems,
installing the required technology to treat the wastewater, maintaining
equipment and conducting chemical analyses for compliance.
[[Page 44695]]
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 today's proposal. In general, when an airport
lacked a comparable collection system to the one used as the basis for
the options considered in today's proposal, EPA included costs for
installation/implementation of one of the following collection
technologies: GRVs, GRVs used in conjunction with plug-and-pump
systems, or deicing pads.
For estimating wastewater treatment costs, EPA assumed costs for
storage of anticipated volumes of collected ADF. Airport-specific costs
were assessed for storage options, including ponds, permanent tanks
(both underground and aboveground), or mobile/temporary fractional
distillation tanks.
EPA based its selection of a particular storage option on an
airport's current storage facilities, and on what would be the easiest
for that airport to implement. The Agency assumed that it is likely
that an airport with a pond already in place would use that for
storage, as opposed to constructing permanent tanks; and assumed that
an airport with limited available land would install an underground
tank.
Based on questionnaire responses and engineering judgment, EPA
assessed the current level of treatment for each model facility that
discharges directly to waters of the U.S. Except in limited
circumstances, when a model facility was determined to require
additional treatment, EPA assigned costs associated with installing an
AFB treatment system as the most likely means of compliance.
Of the direct discharging model facilities that were modeled for
treatment costs, EPA assumed that approximately five percent would use
off-site hauling for waste treatment, based on the Agency's estimate
that this percentage will find this choice to be the most cost-
effective alternative. These facilities have relatively limited deicing
operations and off-site hauling is more cost-effective than installing
an on-site biological treatment system. Additionally, an on-site
biological treatment system would require a regular wastestream flow in
order to keep the biological system functioning properly, and an
airport with limited deicing operations may have trouble maintaining a
regular wastestream.
EPA recognizes that an airport may decide to use a POTW rather than
directly discharging its wastewater. While this may be a lower cost
alternative in some cases, EPA did not estimate costs for such a
change, because the Agency does not have enough information about the
capacity of specific POTWs to receive these volumes of wastewater. EPA
also was not able to determine if a specific POTW would be unwilling to
accept the wastewater from a particular airport, and for other reasons,
such as inconsistencies with its future growth plans. For these
reasons, EPA did not include this alternative in its model.
An airport that has upgraded its collection and treatment systems
may have additional monitoring costs. While the permit authority
determines the required monitoring frequency for an individual
permittee, EPA estimated the overall costs of the anticipated
monitoring requirements associated with the proposed rule. EPA
estimated the cost per airport for the ADF collection requirement, and
the cost of analyzing COD in the treated effluent. For costing
purposes, EPA assumed that an airport would take a 24-hour composite
sample and analyze that for COD, and perform that analysis five times
per week throughout the deicing season. EPA made a similar assumption
for purposes of computing the proposed weekly average effluent
limitation. As a conservative estimate, EPA assumed a six-month deicing
season for all modeled facilities. Additionally, EPA assumed that the
model facility would perform an assessment of their collection system
once every permit cycle.
3. Approach for Estimating Airfield Pavement Deicing Costs
Under today's proposal, in addition to the requirements set forth
for capture/treatment of aircraft deicing fluid, an airport would be
required to certify it uses non-urea-based airfield deicers. Through
the results of the Airport Questionnaire, EPA learned that 29 model
facilities (a subset of the 149 model facilities referenced above) use
urea for airfield pavement deicing. As detailed in Section VII.D.3, EPA
based its certification requirement on product substitution. EPA
calculated the cost for these 29 model facilities to substitute the
urea used for deicing 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 64 percent of
the applied chemical airfield deicer usage (by weight) in the U.S.
EPA identified 16 airports that used both urea and potassium
acetate for airfield deicing, and 8 of these airports provided usage
data. The Agency calculated that the average cost of urea was $274.24/
ton and the average cost of potassium acetate was $3.16/gallon. The
questionnaire responses indicated that between 2002 and 2005 an average
of over 7 million pounds of urea were used annually, costing an
estimated $1.06 million.
Urea deicers are applied at a different rate to have an efficacy
equivalent to potassium acetate. EPA had to determine what amount of
potassium acetate would be required to replace the estimated 7 million
pounds of urea used annually. EPA could not locate any information on
the relative application rates between potassium acetate and urea
directly; however, we did develop a comparison to sodium acetate,
another solid pavement deicer. Both urea and potassium acetate
application rates vary depending on the weather conditions and the
thickness of the ice layer at the time of application. Using the
information available, EPA assessed comparable application rates and
costs between urea and potassium acetate to treat 1,000 ft \2\ of area
for thin ice conditions at 32 [deg]F and 1-inch-thick ice conditions at
less than 10 [deg]F. DCN AD00843 provides additional details about the
calculations on product substitution.
Using the reported urea usage in the Airport Questionnaire, EPA
estimated the airfield area that was annually deiced at each model
facility. Finally, using the estimated model facility airfield area in
conjunction with the estimated $2.32/1,000 ft\2\ 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 costs to determine the incremental
costs of switching chemical airfield deicers.
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).
For each model facility, EPA calculated an annualized cost based on
the sum of all the associated O&M costs as well as amortized capital
costs. Capital costs were amortized over the lifespan of the capital
improvement, as reported by the facility. No capital costs were
amortized over more than 20 years, even if an estimated lifespan of an
airport exceeded 20 years. Finally, EPA
[[Page 44696]]
combined the amortized costs with the annual O&M to calculate the total
annual cost of the regulation for that model facility.
EPA then utilized statistical weights assigned to each of the 149
model facilities in order to calculate a national estimated cost of
$91.3 million for complying with the proposed rule. Further discussion
of all of the calculations discussed above can be found in the TDD.
J. Approach to Estimating Pollutant Reductions
1. Overview
The pollutants of concern associated with airfield and aircraft
deicing and anti-icing chemicals are discussed earlier in this
preamble. These chemicals commingle with stormwater and they 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. The oxygen demand
of compounds can be measured as five-day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5) and chemical oxygen demand (COD), or calculated as
theoretical oxygen demand (ThOD).
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
an estimation 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.
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 (BTS), including the number of
operations and departures by airport;
Weather information for each airport from National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (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; and
Analytical data from EPA sampling episodes of airport
deicing operations.
a. Baseline Loading Calculations
To estimate pollutant loadings from deicing operations, EPA
analyzed airports' questionnaire responses and information provided
during the site visits. The Agency estimated the total amount of
pavement deicing chemicals and ADF used based on data collected in the
Airport and Airline Questionnaires.
In the Airport Questionnaire, EPA requested that airport
authorities report the purchase/usage amount, concentration, and brand
name of pavement deicing materials. EPA evaluated each reported
chemical to determine the most appropriate way to estimate the average
amount used over the past three winter seasons. EPA also requested the
purchase amount, concentration, and brand names of ADF chemicals in the
Airline Questionnaire.
The responses to the Airline Questionnaire provided sufficient data
to estimate ADF usage at 56 airports. In some cases, data were not
available for every airline operating at a particular airport. In these
instances, 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 and the total amount of airport
operations. In addition to the ADF data reported in the Airline
Detailed Questionnaire, 10 airports reported total gallons of ADF usage
to EPA in their comment section of the Airport Deicing Questionnaire.
These ADF data were combined with the ADF data reported in the Airline
Deicing Questionnaires, resulting in estimates of total ADF usage for
66 airports.
Using the Airline and Airport Questionnaire ADF purchase data,
airport departure data, and climate data, EPA developed a relationship
between the estimate of amount of ADF used, the climate and size of
each airport. EPA used this equation to estimate the total gallons of
ADF used at airports that did not have available ADF data in the
Airport or Airline Questionnaires.
Once the amount of ADF applied at each airport had been determined,
EPA needed to determine the amount of ADF available for direct
discharge. EPA assumes that 80 percent of applied Type I and Type II
ADF falls onto the pavement at the deicing area and is available for
discharge. EPA assumes 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.) The total amount of applied ADF was
multiplied by the appropriate percent available for discharge to
determine the amount of ADF that is available for discharge. Note that
compliance capture requirements in the proposed rule 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, would result in the total
amount of discharged ADF. After excluding the ADF removed via baseline
capture, EPA calculated the amount of COD and BOD5 loading
associated with the degradation of the applied deicing/anti-icing
chemicals. EPA later decided that COD was a more accurate and practical
indicator to regulate than BOD5 (see the discussion in
Section 7 of the Technical Development Document).
Airfield pavement deicing chemicals are applied at various airside
areas where differing activities occur. Theoretically, the amount of
pavement deicers being discharged could range from approximately zero
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
[[Page 44697]]
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 pavement deicers are discharged to surface waters.
This means the estimates of baseline pollutant loadings and removals
associated with pavement de-icing are upper bound estimates.
EPA calculated the amount of pollutant loadings discharged to
surface waters by using standard published chemical information and
stoichiometric equations. This methodology is preferable to using
empirical data because it can be applied to all deicing chemicals being
used by the aviation industry. In addition, this methodology allows for
a clear presentation of the calculations and assumptions used. EPA
confirmed the validity of the COD concentrations for propylene glycol
and ethylene glycol calculated using this methodology against the
available empirical data. See Section 10 of the TDD for more
information on calculations of baseline loadings due to airfield
deicers.
b. Calculation of Pollutant Removals
EPA estimated the amounts of COD that would be reduced by the
proposed rule, by estimating the existing capture and treatment levels
at individual airports and comparing that to the levels that would be
required by the proposed rule. If a particular airport would be subject
to a collection requirement of 20 percent under the proposed rule and
it currently is estimated to capture a greater proportion, then no load
removals were estimated for that airport. Additionally, if an airport
was estimated to use urea for pavement deicing, EPA assumed that the
airport would use product substitution to meet the proposed effluent
limit. The ammonia and COD loads associated with urea were calculated
and then EPA computed the total load reduction by subtracting the
ammonia loadings and the COD loadings of the substitute product,
potassium acetate. (Although some studies indicate that alternative
pavement deicers can be toxic to aquatic organisms, the combined impact
of the COD content, toxicity, and nutrient content of urea is greater
than effects associated with alternative pavement deicers.)
These calculated loading reductions, for both airfield and aircraft
deicing chemicals, were then extrapolated by multiplying the direct
discharge loads or load removals by the airport survey weighting
factors to determine national loads for the entire industry for
baseline and each regulatory scenario. EPA estimates the total annual
pollutant removal for the proposed rule at 44.6 million pounds,
comprised of 39.9 million pounds of COD and 4.7 million pounds of
ammonia. The pollutant removal estimates for the other regulatory
options range from 26 million pounds to 46 million pounds.
K. Approach to Determining Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors and
Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards
This section describes the statistical methodology used to develop
the proposed daily maximum and maximum for weekly average effluent
limitations for BAT and new source performance standards for COD. EPA
also used the same statistical methodology to develop the daily maximum
limitation/standard for ammonia that is a proposed compliance
alternative when urea is applied to runways. For simplicity, the
following discussion uses the term ``limitation'' to refer to effluent
limitations, standards, and the compliance alternative. EPA has
proposed the same limitations for each level of recovery requirements,
because the treatment technology and performance are the same
regardless of the amount of fluid recovered.
The following sections describe the data selection criteria; the
statistical percentile basis of the proposed limitations; rationales
for proposing 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 proposed limitations.
1. Criteria Used To Select Data as the Basis of the Proposed
Limitations
Typically, in developing effluent limitations for any industry, EPA
qualitatively reviews all the data before selecting a subset as the
basis of 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 good
operation. 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 generally excludes such data in
developing the limitations. In contrast, EPA expects airports to
encounter start-up operations at the start of every deicing season
because they probably will cease treatment operations during warmer
months. Because this adjustment period will occur every year for the
Airport Deicing Category, EPA is proposing to include start-up data in
the data set used as the basis of the limitations. However, through its
application of the other three criteria, EPA would exclude extreme
conditions that do not demonstrate the level of control possible with
proper operation and control even during start-up periods.
In part, by retaining start-up data for limitations development,
the limitations will be achievable because EPA based these limits on
typical treatment during the entire season. Once the treatment system
reaches steady state, EPA expects a typically well-designed and
operated system to run continuously until the end of the deicing
season. Conversely, EPA might determine that systems that operated only
during relatively short periods, such as during each winter storm event
(i.e., of only several days duration), might be poorly operated because
the model technology requires more time to reach steady state. In other
words, it would be ineffective and disruptive to turn the system on and
off throughout the deicing season, particularly for biological systems,
such as the model technology, and EPA may reject data if it determines
that it reflects this type of operation.
2. Data Used as Basis of Proposed Limitations
Of the effluent data available to EPA, 2,562 concentration values
for COD and
[[Page 44698]]
5 concentration values for ammonia met the requirements in the criteria
and are the basis of the proposed limitations. The concentration values
are measurements of effluent collected from Albany Airport's anaerobic
treatment system. The 2,562 COD values were collected by the airport
during its daily monitoring of COD over ten deicing seasons (i.e.,
December 1, 1999 through April 10, 2009). The five ammonia values were
collected by EPA during its sampling episode (February 5 through
February 9, 2006). (As explained in Section VII.E.3, EPA transferred
the ammonia data from the anaerobic fluidized bed (AFB) technology
because an AFB system by design creates ammonia as a by-product of
wastewater treatment. Consequently, AFB discharges could have higher
ammonia concentrations than typically found in airfield runoff when
urea is not present. If the treated aircraft deicing effluent then were
discharged through the same pipe as the runway runoff, the airport
might have difficulties complying with the ammonia limitation.)
For the final rule, EPA might further explore factors contributing
to variability observed in the available data, assess whether some
modes of operations do not reflect the performance expected from the
model technology (as required by criterion 3), and thus decide whether
to exclude any of the corresponding data as the basis of any
limitation.
EPA is soliciting additional data on airport discharges (see
Section XIV for a detailed request for data). When applying the data
selection criteria for the final limitations, EPA will consider new
information from commenters and other sources. Consequently, EPA may
reach new conclusions about whether some or all of the proposal data
should be included or excluded as the basis of the final limitations;
and/or revisions to its statistical approach are appropriate. As a
result of its evaluation of the new information, EPA may promulgate
final limitations that are more or less stringent than the proposed
limitations.
3. Statistical Percentile Basis for Limitations
EPA uses a statistical framework to establish limitations that
facilities are capable of complying with at all times. 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 fluctuation 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 proposed
daily maximum limitations and weekly average limitations.
The statistical percentiles are intended, on one hand, 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 technologies that are properly operated and maintained.
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 normal operations. 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 considerably
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 and
numerous courts have upheld EPA's approach.
EPA has not promulgated weekly average limitations for other
industries, and thus, is soliciting comment on its approach for this
industry. Because EPA typically establishes limitations based upon
statistical percentile estimates, it is proposing to do so for the
weekly average limitation. In its derivation of the weekly average
limitation 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 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. For this reason, EPA is
proposing and seeks comment on the choice to use a larger percentile
for the weekly average limitation than the one used for the monthly
average limitation. Consequently, EPA is proposing the 97th percentile
as an appropriate basis for limiting average discharges on a weekly
basis. 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 Proposing Limitation on Weekly Averages Instead of
Monthly Averages for COD in Effluent Discharges
From a monitoring perspective, EPA considers the weekly average
limitation to be a better fit than the monthly average limitation for
the circumstances associated with monitoring during the deicing season.
In this situation, the weekly average limitation would apply to every
week that the treatment system operates during the deicing season.
When it establishes monthly average limitations, 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 limitation requires facilities to provide on-going
control that complements controls imposed by the daily maximum
limitation. To meet the monthly average limitation, a facility must
counterbalance a value near the daily maximum limitation with one or
more values well below the daily maximum limitation. To achieve
compliance, these values must result in a monthly average value at or
below the monthly average limitation.
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
[[Page 44699]]
months. Increasing or decreasing monitoring frequency does not affect
the statistical properties of the underlying distribution of the data
used to derive the limitations. 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 limitation 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.
A weekly average limitation preserves EPA's intent for an
additional restriction beyond the daily maximum limitation that
supports EPA's objective of having airports control their average
discharges at the long-term average. EPA is proposing and soliciting
comment on use of a weekly average instead of a monthly average
limitation because it appears to be a better fit for this industry from
a monitoring perspective. However, two factors may warrant another
approach in the final rule. First, a week may be too short a period to
ensure that airports will optimize their systems appropriately over a
longer period to achieve the long-term average. Second, the industry
and permit writers are unlikely to have experience with weekly average
limitations and may prefer other alternatives. Other approaches may
include the monthly average limitation and/or the annual average
limitation sometimes used for intermittent dischargers in other
industries. For example, for the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Category
(40 CFR Part 430), EPA promulgated an annual average limitation that
was set equal to the value of the long-term average derived from the
data used to develop the daily maximum and monthly average limitations
for continuous dischargers. (It does not have an allowance for
variability.) EPA solicits comment on whether weekly average
limitations, monthly average limitations or some other approach would
be appropriate to ensure that airports have well-operated, maintained,
and controlled treatment systems that discharge at a level consistent
with the long-term average.
5. Rationale for Proposing a Limitation Only for Daily Discharges of
Ammonia in Effluent Discharges
EPA believes that it appropriate to rely on a daily maximum
limitation to ensure that airports appropriately control ammonia levels
as airports might have difficulties in complying with any average
limitation due to monitoring less frequently than assumed in the
statistical calculations (see discussion related to monitoring for
COD). Unlike COD, EPA is not proposing a weekly ammonia effluent
limitation. The technology basis for the COD effluent limitations would
operate throughout the deicing season with continuous discharges
allowing for weekly monitoring. In contrast, urea is applied to
airfield pavement as needed, and discharges would occur for a short
time after the initial application, as the urea works its way through
the stormwater collection and any associated treatment system that may
be present. Most airports would have non-continuous and somewhat
infrequent urea discharges. Consequently, it would be difficult to
assume a single value for the monitoring frequency that could
reasonably be applied to all airports, regardless of climatic
conditions. In developing the average limitations, this assumed
monitoring frequency is used in the statistical calculations. Although
EPA has concerns about establishing average limitations on a national
basis, a permit authority may choose to establish weekly or monthly
average limitations for a specific airport, and would presumably assume
a monitoring frequency based upon local climatic conditions.
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 runoff. Thus, it is
possible that no airports will be subject to any limitation on ammonia
discharges. For the final rule, after reviewing any supplementary
information and comments, EPA may reevaluate whether weekly and/or
monthly average limitations are necessary for proper control of
ammonia.
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
limitations. 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) of the observed data points.
For the proposed daily maximum limitation for COD, EPA used the
nonparametric method to derive a 99th percentile of the more than 1200
daily measurements for each unit, and then set the proposed limitation
equal to the median of the two 99th percentile estimates, or 271 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 limitation of COD, EPA first calculated, for
each unit, the arithmetic average of the measurements observed during
each week, excluding weekends (to be consistent with the assumed
monitoring costs, although permit authorities may specify different
monitoring requirements). EPA then used the nonparametric method to
derive a 97th percentile of the more than 200 weekly averages for each
unit, and set the proposed limitation equal to the median of the two
97th percentile estimates, or 154 mg/L.
For comparison purposes, EPA tentatively estimated 112 mg/L as the
95th percentile of the monthly averages using a statistical model based
upon the lognormal distribution. If EPA were to establish a monthly
average limitation, it would examine the statistical properties of the
data to determine the appropriate model and statistical assumptions.
For ammonia, EPA used a parametric approach in estimating the 99th
percentile based upon the data collected during EPA's 4-day sampling
episode. The calculations assume the ammonia concentrations can be
modeled by a lognormal distribution. EPA's selection of parametric
methods, such as the lognormal distribution, 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), 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 proposed 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 are more closely interrelated than measurements taken
farther apart in time. The adjusted variance then better reflects the
underlying variability that would be present if the data were
[[Page 44700]]
collected over a longer period. For comparison purposes, EPA estimated
values of 9.75 and 6.98 mg/L for the weekly average limitation and
monthly average limitation.
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 the daily maximum
limitation or the weekly average limitation, instead of the long-term
average, may experience frequent values exceeding the limitations. 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 that it derived for the model technology. Thus, a
well-operated and designed system will be capable of complying with the
proposed limitations.
For COD, EPA recommends that airports target treatment systems to
achieve the long-term average value of 41 mg/L, which is the median of
the 50th percentiles, of 37 and 45 mg/L, of the daily values from the
two units. The daily allowance for variability, or the ratio of the
limitation to the long-term average, is 6.6. (EPA usually refers to
this allowance as the ``variability factor.'') In other words, the
daily maximum limitation of 271 mg/L is about seven times greater than
the long-term average achievable by the model technology. The weekly
variability factor is 3.8.
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 by-
product of the model technology, and EPA expects the concentrations of
ammonia to have similar variability to what is being treated (i.e.,
COD). In contrast to the COD limitations, which are based on a mixture
of start-up and steady state periods, the ammonia limitation is based
upon data collected only during steady state operations. EPA requests
additional data that reflect ammonia discharges during start-up
operations.
8. Engineering Review of Proposed 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
proposed limitations. In doing so, EPA excluded one extreme value
because plant personnel considered it to be atypical, and likely, the
result of high solids content. Plant personnel also noted that they had
removed and reinstalled the carbon for one unit prior to the last
deicing season. Because the performance for the next deicing season was
among the best demonstrated for this system EPA concluded that the data
with the new carbon characterized variability that operators could
expect from periodic maintenance for long-term operation.
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 proposed
limitations to the data values used to calculate the limitations. None
of the data selected for ammonia were greater than its proposed 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 limitations some values were
greater than the proposed limitations. Of the 2,562 data points
selected for COD, 27 data points had daily values that were greater
than the proposed daily maximum limitation of 271 mg/L. Of the 460
weekly averages, 14 averages had values that were greater than the
proposed weekly average limitation of 154 mg/L. Of those 14 averages,
11 were during weeks when the unit also had one or more daily values
that were greater than the daily maximum limitation. EPA considered,
from an engineering perspective, whether any factors were likely to
have led to the larger daily discharges of COD. These factors included
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 systems 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
limitations appear to provide adequate allowance for start-up
operations.
For the final rule, EPA may further assess the range of the
operating conditions and resulting performance of the treatment units
used at the Albany airport that were the basis of the COD limitation.
For example, EPA may contact this airport about the 27 COD values
greater than the proposed daily maximum limitation. In the final rule,
EPA may consider adjustments (upward or downward) to the limitations to
ensure that they adequately reflect normal operations of the model
technology. These final limitations may require some dischargers to
improve treatment systems and/or operations to meet consistently the
effluent limitations. EPA determined that this consequence is
consistent with the Clean Water Act statutory framework, which requires
that discharge limitations reflect the best available technology.
L. Complying With Regulatory Requirements
1. Compliance Dates
EPA proposes that the compliance date for today's proposed
requirements will be 30 days after promulgation. Permits issued after
this date will need to include limits consistent with the final rule.
2. Determination of Number of Annual Departures
Airports, in determining whether they are subject to this proposed
rule, will need to refer to the number of annual departures over a
five-year period prior to submittal of a permit application or NOI. Air
traffic controllers tabulate departure data, which are then compiled in
the BTS T-100 database (available at http://transtats.bts.gov). These
data, along with ADF usage data collected pursuant to proposed Sec.
449.20(a), will allow permittees, permit authorities, and the public to
easily determine which ADF collection requirements would apply to a
particular airport.
[[Page 44701]]
3. Alternate Means of Demonstrating Compliance
a. ADF Collection Requirement
EPA is aware that the ADF collection requirement differs from
traditional end-of-pipe effluent limitations with regard to a mechanism
for demonstrating compliance. Compliance with the collection
requirement cannot 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. EPA is proposing three procedures for demonstrating
compliance with the ADF collection requirement.
The first procedure would require an airport to certify to the
permitting authority that it is operating its collection system in
accordance with specifications for the applicable technology described
at proposed Sec. 449.20(b)(1). The proposed specifications describe
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 would be for the permitted facilities to
certify to the permit authority that it is operating according to the
specifications.
It is not practical for EPA to provide operating specifications for
all potential collection technologies. In the instance where an airport
wants to perform ADF collection with a technology other than those
described in the regulations, under proposed Sec. 449.20(b)(2) the
permit authority may consult with the permittee and specify, on a case-
by-case basis, an alternative ADF collection technology as the manner
in which the permittee must demonstrate compliance with its capture
requirement. Under this provision, the Director would also be able to
specify alternate operating parameters for one of the technologies
listed in the proposed rule, in consultation with the permittee. As
part of the permit application, the permittee would be required to
demonstrate, to the Permit authority's satisfaction, that the specified
technology is designed to achieve the capture requirement as set forth
in today's proposal. Again, the only reporting requirement for this
scenario would be for the permitted facilities to certify to their
permit authorities that they are operating and maintaining their
permitted technology as required.
A third procedure, under proposed Sec. 449.20(b)(3), would be for
the permitted facility to periodically monitor, through a mass balance
analysis or other means deemed acceptable by the permitting authority.
The permittee would report, at a frequency determined by the permit
authority, the amount of ADF sprayed and the amount of available ADF
collected, in order to determine the percentage of available ADF
collected.
b. Ammonia Limits
While EPA proposed a non-urea-based airfield deicing certification
requirement, it is also proposing that an airport may choose a
compliance alternative in which it would monitor all runway outfalls to
demonstrate compliance with a proposed alternative compliance ammonia
limit. However, as described further in Section VII.E.3, EPA
anticipates that most if not all permittees would certify rather than
choose the proposed compliance alternative ammonia limitation.
VIII. Economic Analysis for Airports
A. Introduction
EPA's economic analysis assesses the costs and impacts of the
proposed effluent guidelines on the regulated industry. This section
explains EPA's methodology and the results of its economic analysis.
The EA contains more detailed results of this analysis.
B. Economic Data Collection Activities
EPA obtained the following data submitted by airlines to the Bureau
of Transportation Statistics (BTS):
Aircraft departures, enplaned passengers, and cargo by
airport of origination, destination, airline, aircraft, and service
type (passenger or cargo only) maintained in the Form 41 Traffic
Database;
Air carrier summary traffic and capacity statistics such
as available seat-miles, available ton-miles, revenue seat-miles, and
revenue ton-miles maintained in the Form 41 Traffic Database;
Operating revenues, profits, and net income for large
certificated carriers maintained in the Form 41 Financial Database;
Operating revenues, profits, and net income for small
certificated and commuter air carriers submitted by airlines to the BTS
and maintained in the Form 298c Financial Database. These financial
data are confidential business information and cannot made public until
three years after the reporting year. EPA obtained them through a
special request to the BTS, and they will not be included in the
rulemaking public docket.
EPA obtained data on airport revenues, expenses and other financial
information that were submitted under FAA's Financial Reporting Program
by commercial service airports receiving Airport Improvement Program
(AIP) grants. As noted in Section VI above, EPA surveyed: All U.S.
primary airports with more than 30,000 annual departures by commercial
air carriers; a sample of small hub and non-hub primary airports with
fewer than 30,000 commercial air carrier annual departures (excluding
Alaska); and selected General Aviation/Cargo airports and Alaskan
airports. The Airport Questionnaire collected data on airport
ownership, financial management, signatory airlines, sources of capital
funding, and non-airline aircraft operations. These data were collected
to provide EPA with a context to understand better the data that were
obtained through the Financial Reporting Program.
In addition, EPA surveyed a sample of airlines that operated at
each of the surveyed airports; all airlines with more than 20,000
annual departures at a surveyed airport received a questionnaire, as
well as a sample of airlines with more than 1,000 annual departures at
each surveyed airport. The Airline Questionnaire collected data on
deicing operations at each airport, including the airline's deicing
budget, costs included in the budget, whether the airport is an
operational hub for the airline, and whether its aircraft were deiced
by another airline or a fixed base operator providing ground services
at that airport.
EPA also used journal articles, academic publications, and data and
reports from trade organizations, FAA, DOT, and other government
agencies and other publications to inform the analysis of the effluent
guidelines.
C. Annualized Compliance Cost Estimates
EPA estimates that 218 primary airports that perform deicing
operations and have more than 1,000 annual jet departures will be
regulated by the proposed rule. EPA estimated the economic cost to each
potentially affected airport of complying with the BAT limitations
being proposed today using the BAT technologies identified by EPA in
this proposal. Thus, EPA assumed that airports would:
Discontinue urea usage for airfield deicing and use
substitute deicing products instead;
Collect at least 60 percent of applied ADF and treat to
the specified numeric discharge limit using anaerobic fluidized bed
technology if the airport
[[Page 44702]]
has more than 10,000 annual departures, and on average 460,000 or more
gallons of ADF is applied annually at the airport;
Collect at least 20 percent of applied ADF and treat to
the specified numeric discharge limit using anaerobic fluidized bed
technology if the airport has more than 10,000 annual departures, and
on average less than 460,000 gallons of ADF is applied annually at the
airport.
Because many airports do not meet the above criteria, EPA estimates
that approximately 164 primary airports, 135 non-primary airports, and
almost 3,000 general aviation airports are not regulated under the
proposed rule.
EPA projects that 70 of the 218 in-scope airports would incur costs
under this proposal associated with deicing of aircraft. EPA's
assessment of the remaining 148 airports indicates they are already in
compliance with the performance standard, and therefore would not incur
additional costs because of this proposal. The technologies that are
the basis for today's proposal are projected to cost affected airports
$714.0 million in total capital costs over the 20-year analytic period.
EPA believes the effective service life of deicing pads is at least 20
years, but the effective service life of GRV and plug-and-pump
technologies is 10 years. (Plug-and-pump technologies are not part of
the proposed option.) Therefore, for any airport modeled using GRV and/
or plug-and-pump technologies, EPA incorporated capital expenditures in
year 10 for replacement in addition to the initial capital expenditure.
The total capital cost figure in Table VIII-1 includes all initial and
replacement capital expenditures. 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. Thus, the PV of capital costs is also presented in Table VIII-1
to allow a fair comparison between technologies requiring replacement
with those only requiring initial investment over the 20-year analytic
period. The PV of capital costs under the proposed option 3 is $701.7
million over the 20-year analytic period.
The annual cost of operating and maintaining the technologies
identified as BAT for aircraft deicing for this proposed rule, which
includes the cost of using potassium acetate instead of urea to deice
airfield pavement, is estimated at $45.9 million. Adding this operation
and maintenance cost to the $45.4 million in capital costs of
installing deicing pads at the seven airports who are not currently
meeting the 60 percent capture requirement, the rule would have a total
annualized cost of $91.3 million ($2006). Of the 70 airports projected
to incur costs under this proposed rule: 40 airports only incur costs
associated with the urea ban, 17 airports only incur costs associated
with the collection and treatment of ADF, and 13 airports incur costs
associated with both the urea ban and ADF collection and treatment.
Table VIII-1 presents projected costs for the proposed rule, as well as
the other three options examined (see Section VII.D.3).
Table VIII-1--BAT Costs to Airports That Deice Aircraft and Airfield Pavement
[2006 $ millions--218 airports] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present
Airports Total value of Annualized Annual O&M Total
Option incurring capital capital capital costs annualized
costs costs costs costs costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. 67 $311.4 $299.5 $19.2 $17.1 $36.4
2................................. 75 457.8 435.2 28.0 82.1 110.1
3 \b\............................. 70 714.0 701.7 45.4 45.9 91.3
4................................. 121 871.8 848.7 54.9 50.0 105.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ EPA used a discount rate of 5.25% as provided by the airport industry. See Section 5 of the Economic
Analysis for further information.
\b\ Proposed option.
D. Economic Impact Methodologies
EPA's analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed effluent
guidelines and new source performance standards for airport deicing
operations examined the impacts of the proposed regulations on the
economic viability of airports and their customer airlines. We note
that there are a number of distinguishing features of this industry
that make the analysis here different from the type of more traditional
analysis EPA would perform for a for-profit manufacturing industry.
First, almost all potentially affected airports are publicly owned
and operated by local, county, or state governments, or by quasi-
governmental authorities created to operate the airport. As
governmental or 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 airline customers legally required to cover
expenditures in excess of costs.
Second, if compliance costs are passed through to airlines serving
the affected airports, those airlines would likely determine economic
achievability on a route and/or airport basis, as well as how that
route/airport fits into the airline's entire route structure. Further,
a decision to drop a route at one airport if the route is no longer
financially viable may affect the financial viability of connecting
routes associated with the same or different airports. However, airline
cost and revenue data are only available at the airline level, not on a
route-specific basis.
Third, recent years have been financially difficult for the air
transportation industry. In aggregate, airlines earned negative
operating profit (operating revenues less operating expenses) from 2001
through 2004, and negative net income from 2001 through 2005. A
comparison of the expected compliance costs of this proposed regulation
with industry profits is not a useful benchmark here (as it usually
would be for evaluating the impacts of effluent guidelines on for-
profit industries in better financial condition) where many airlines
are actually losing money prior to this proposal.
1. Cost Annualization
The first step in projecting the economic and financial impacts of
this proposed rule on airports is cost annualization. For each airport,
EPA projected the capital and operating and maintenance costs of the
technology basis for each ADF target removal percentage over 20 years,
discounted future costs using an airport-specific opportunity cost of
capital, and annualized those costs to represent 20 equal annual cost
payments incurred by the airport. Based on their expected service
lives, the capital cost estimates incorporate periodic replacement of
[[Page 44703]]
GRVs and plug-and pump-technologies. For the purposes of projecting
capital costs, EPA expects both these technologies will require
replacement after 10 years, while a deicing pad is expected to last 20
years before requiring replacement. The method for projecting each
airport's capital and operating costs is described in Section VII.I.
EPA assumed airports will issue tax-exempt, fixed coupon rate
serial General Airport Revenue Bonds (GARBs) to fund capital
expenditures. EPA assumed airports will issue bonds equivalent to the
net present value of capital costs plus 3 percent to account for bond
issuance costs. Capital costs were annualized using each airport's
nominal bond rate for its most recent GARB issue. This was converted to
a real rate using an average annual inflation rate of 2.3 percent over
the last 5 years. The average nominal discount rate for costed airports
was 5.25 percent, which is equivalent to 2.87 percent after accounting
for inflation. Costs were annualized over 20 years. Table VIII-1
presents the total net present value and annualized value of capital
costs as well as the operating and maintenance costs for each option.
2. Impacts
Because airports are generally non-profit government or quasi-
government (e.g., port authorities) enterprise funds, the effect of an
effluent guideline on airport income statements and balance sheets is
not equivalent to the impact on income of a for-profit private-sector
business. Therefore, EPA chose to examine the financial impacts of the
proposed effluent guidelines using two measures. First, EPA compared
airport revenues with annualized compliance costs. Second, because EPA
expects many, if not all, airports will fund capital expenditures by
issuing debt (GARBs), EPA examined the impact of additional debt on
each airport's debt service coverage ratio.
a. Revenue Test
EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (2000) recommends
the ``revenue test'' as a measure for impacts of programs that directly
affect government and not-for-profit entities. The revenue test
compares the annualized compliance costs of the regulation with the
revenues of the governmental entity. The guidance suggests evaluating
the affordability of a regulatory option as follows:
If annualized compliance costs are less than 1 percent of
revenues, the option is generally considered affordable;
If annualized compliance costs are greater than 1 percent,
but less than 3 percent of revenues, the option may be considered
affordable if only a few entities are affected and the majority incurs
costs less than one percent of revenues;
If annualized compliance costs are greater than 3 percent
of revenues, the option is not generally considered affordable.
EPA found that only one surveyed airport is privately owned, and
because that airport is not a commercial service airport, it would not
be within the scope of coverage of today's proposed rule. All other
surveyed airports are owned by state, city or county governments, or by
airport or multi-port authorities. Thus, use of the revenue test is
appropriate to measure impacts to airports. EPA used operating revenues
as reported on Form 127 of the FAA's Airport Financial Reporting
Program as the denominator for the revenue test ratio, and annualized
compliance costs for each option as described under Cost Annualization
(see Section VIII.D.1) as the numerator for the ratio.
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 debt service coverage ratio (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 all bond issues if its DSCR falls below
the relevant benchmark. Review of Comprehensive Annual Financial
Reports (CAFR) for affected airports shows that the ratio of net
revenues to debt service for any given year cannot fall below 1.25.
EPA assumed capital financing will occur through the issue of
GARBs; this can only be done if the additional debt does not cause the
issuer's DSCR to fall below the benchmark. Therefore, EPA estimated the
post-regulatory DSCR for each airport incurring capital expenditures
under the proposed rule.
From 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, EPA aggregated compliance costs for all
affected airports in the system, and performed a single calculation for
the entire system. EPA calculated the 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. Some
evidence suggests airports do not pass through 100 percent of costs, at
least in the short run, if there is concern an airline might withdraw
service if the airport increases fees. This might occur if the airport
has nearby competitors, or if airline finances are fragile. Therefore,
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.
Assuming 100 percent cost pass-through from airports to airlines,
EPA estimated the post-regulatory DSCR by: (1) Adding the net increase
in landing fees associated with compliance (that is, total annualized
compliance costs less incremental annual deicing operating and
maintenance costs) to pre-regulatory airport net revenues, and (2)
adding the annualized value of capital compliance costs to the debt
service figure. Assuming no cost pass-through from airports to
airlines, EPA estimated the post-regulatory DSCR by: (1) Subtracting
incremental annual deicing operating and maintenance costs from pre-
regulatory airport net revenues, and (2) adding the annualized value of
capital compliance costs to the debt service figure.
3. Cost Pass-Through
Historically, most or all airport costs are eventually paid for by
airlines and the airlines' customers. Airlines paid airports for
operating costs through rates and charges, and for airport capital
expansion through aviation user taxes that formed the basis for AIP
grants or by providing the revenue stream to finance bond issues. In
recent years, airports have developed new revenue streams from
concessions, parking, and car rentals. In addition, much capital
expenditure is now funded through Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs),
although airlines view PFCs as similar to other fees that affect ticket
prices, and thus reflect costs passed through to them and their
passengers. Although these recent trends have modified airport finance,
EPA's overall understanding is still that in the long run, a large
percentage of airport costs are passed through to airlines and airline
passengers in the form of increased fees.
However, in the short run, cost pass-through (CPT) from airports to
airlines might be significantly smaller than 100 percent. For example,
due to the severe financial distress experienced by
[[Page 44704]]
airlines in the wake of 9/11, a Department of Transportation report
showed that airports suspended or reduced airline rates and charges,
contributed discretionary cash flow to reduce airline charges, and
found other means of reducing (or at least refrained from increasing)
airport costs to airlines. In addition, airports compete among
themselves for airline service. Anecdotally, some airports in
relatively close proximity to other significant airports have indicated
to EPA that they are reluctant to increase airline rates and charges
for fear of losing traffic to competitors.
Although the general economic pressures that affect an airport's
ability to pass through costs are well understood, EPA found no studies
that have attempted to quantify this relationship. Therefore, to study
the range of possible impacts, EPA has chosen to model CPT in the form
of three scenarios: the two endpoints of the spectrum (0 percent and
100 percent CPT), and an intermediate scenario of 50 percent CPT.
In addition, airlines pass through costs to passengers in the form
of higher ticket prices. The ability of airlines to do this depends
largely on market-specific factors such as the desirability of an
airport as a final destination, whether the trip to that final
destination is for business or pleasure, and whether other airports
with acceptable standards of airline service are close to that
destination. If an airport serves a highly desirable final destination,
with a high percentage of business travel, and no alternative airports
nearby, airlines might be able to pass through significant costs to
their passengers. However, although studies have measured the intensity
of demand for airline services in general, there are very few studies
examining airport-specific demand factors.
In addition, the ability of airlines to pass through costs to
passengers also depends on the supply of air transportation services.
In some respects, airline tickets have become something of a commodity,
where passengers largely base their choice on ticket price. This acts
to drive prices down to a similar low level. The results of this might
be observed in the recent behavior of airlines. With airline fuel costs
projected to increase by 50 to 70 percent in 2008, airlines have found
it difficult to raise fares, at least in the short run. Announced fare
increases by one airline have not been followed by others, forcing the
airline raising its fares to return them to their initial level. While
airlines have recently started charging or increasing fees for checked
bags, phone reservations, and in-flight meals and snacks, these fees
are expected to cover only a fraction of increased fuel costs. Thus, it
appears that at least in the short run, it is difficult in today's
business climate for airlines to pass through a significant percentage
of costs to their passengers.
E. Selection, Costs and Impacts of BAT Options
Table VIII-2 summarizes the projected annualized compliance costs
and the number and percent of in-scope airports projected to incur
compliance costs greater than 3 percent of operating revenues under
each option analyzed by EPA.
Table VIII-2--Summary of Impacts Under Analyzed Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-scope airports with
projected compliance costs
Total annualized exceeding 3% of operating
Option compliance costs revenues \a\ \b\
(2006 $millions) -------------------------------
Number Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................................... $36.4 9 4.2
2........................................................... 110.1 20 9.2
3 \c\....................................................... 91.3 11 5.1
4........................................................... 105.0 58 26.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Assuming zero percent cost pass-through.
\b\ Impacts were not projected for 3 airports under Options 1 through 3, and 5 airports under Option 4. All 5
airports are owned by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Impacts to these airports
could not be projected because the airport owner does not maintain airport-specific revenue figures.
\c\ Proposed option.
Under Option 2, airports are projected to incur the largest total
annualized costs of all four options examined, yet projected removals
of COD are less than under either Option 3 or Option 4 (see Section 13
of the TDD). Because Option 2 costs more but would remove fewer pounds
of pollutants than either Option 3 or Option 4, EPA eliminated Option 2
as a candidate for selection as best available technology for this ELG.
EPA also rejected Option 4 as a candidate for selection as BAT,
because more than one-quarter of in-scope airports (i.e., 59 out of 218
in-scope airports) are projected to incur costs exceeding 3 percent of
operating revenue under this option. The difference between Option 3
and Option 4 is that Option 4 would extend the 20 percent ADF capture
and treatment rate requirement from primary commercial service airports
with more than 10,000 annual departures to primary commercial service
airports with more than 1,000 annual departures (see Table 4-1 in the
EA). Extending the capture requirement would cause 51 small airports
with relatively low operating revenues that were not projected to incur
costs under Option 3 to incur compliance costs under Option 4. Forty-
seven of these 51 airports are projected to incur costs exceeding 3
percent of revenues (see Table 5-5 in the EA), which means that these
entities would experience a heavy economic burden if required to meet
this option, as described above. Based on the large number of airports
that EPA projects would experience this heavy economic burden, EPA
determined that Option 4 is not economically achievable.
Under Option 3, the proposed regulations would require the 14
airports where average ADF usage has been estimated to exceed 460,000
gallons annually to capture and treat 60 percent of ADF. Airports with
greater than 10,000 annual departures but less than 460,000 gallons of
ADF usage would be required to meet a 20 percent ADF capture and
treatment rate. Under Option 1, the regulations would require all
airports with greater than 10,000 annual departures to meet the 20
percent ADF capture and treatment rate. Thus, the difference between
Option 1 and Option 3 in projected compliance costs, economic impacts,
and pollutant
[[Page 44705]]
removals is entirely attributable to the stricter standard for the 14
airports with the largest ADF usage; this stricter standard would add a
projected $54.9 million in annualized compliance costs to the rule.
EPA determined that both options are economically achievable. The 9
airports projected to incur costs exceeding 3 percent of operating
revenues under Option 1 would incur identical impacts under Option 3.
Due to the 60 percent ADF capture and treatment standard, two
additional airports are projected to incur costs exceeding 3 percent of
operating revenues under Option 3 (see Table 5-5 in the EA). However,
as discussed in Section 2.6 of the EA, very large airports such as
these have significantly better access to financial resources than
smaller airports and serve more passengers and aircraft. Thus, they are
less vulnerable to a potential loss of service in response to increased
rates and charges and earn higher revenue flows. Consequently, EPA
believes these airports will be less affected than smaller airports by
compliance costs that comprise a similar percentage of revenues. In
addition, both of these airports are currently undergoing significant
capital expansion and improvement programs; as part of these programs
both airports are installing deicing pads, however EPA's costing
assumed no deicing pads. Although EPA does not have sufficient
information to determine if these pads will enable the airports to meet
the 60 percent capture and treatment target without further capital
expenditure, their installation should decrease the incremental costs
necessary to reach that standard relative to those estimated for our
analysis.
Airports with less than 10,000 total annual departures have been
excluded from ADF collection and treatment requirements based on
possible economic achievability concerns. EPA's analysis shows that
approximately 46 percent of the next approximately 100 airports (in
terms of ADF usage) would incur costs of greater than 3 percent of
their revenue if required to comply with these additional requirements.
Moreover, airports with less than 10,000 annual departures are smaller
airports and may have greater difficulty raising funds to meet these
ADF requirements. For these reasons, we have decided to exclude
airports with less than 10,000 total annual departures from the ADF
collection and treatment requirements of this proposed rule.
As a check on whether Option 3 is the best combination of
technologies to be selected as BAT, EPA also examined whether there
might be an additional option that would result in more removals than
Option 3 (but less than Option 4) while still being economically
achievable. Option 3 would impose a 60 percent capture requirement on
the 14 airports that are the largest by ADF usage. EPA therefore
considered whether the 60 percent requirement could be extended to
additional airports beyond the top 14 (i.e., extended to airports with
somewhat less ADF usage) without going beyond the limits of economic
achievability. EPA reviewed the projected costs of installing deicing
pads at airports with less than 460,000 gallons of annual ADF usage as
well as those airports' operating revenues. From this review, EPA
concluded that the set of airports immediately following the ``top 14''
by ADF usage would incur significantly greater economic impacts
relative to their resources than would the top 14 airports.
Specifically, of those airports that would incur costs under today's
proposal, 5 of the first 6 airports that immediately follow the top 14
by ADF usage would be projected to incur costs greater than 3 percent
of revenues and therefore would incur a heavy economic burden. In
addition, 29 of the 57 airports in all that follow the top 14 by ADF
usage would be projected to incur costs over 3 percent of revenues.
This confirms, in EPA's view, that imposing the 60 percent requirement
on only the top 14 airports under Option 3 is the appropriate cutoff
point for determining economic achievability for this industry.
Moreover, these additional airports, if subjected to a 60 percent
capture requirement, would be expected to achieve few additional pounds
of pollutant removals relative to Option 3. This additional analysis
confirms EPA's proposal to identify the Option 3 technologies as the
BAT basis for this effluent limitation guideline. See ``Regulatory
Option Development for the Airport Deicing Operations Rulemaking
Proposal'' (DCN AD01168) in the docket for additional information.
Tables VIII-3 through VIII-5 below present more detailed estimated
costs and impacts of the options that EPA considered for BAT.
Table VIII-3 presents the results of the revenue test for affected
airports. Under Option 3, 174 of 218 in-scope airports (80 percent) are
projected to incur zero annualized compliance costs or annualized
compliance costs composing less than 1 percent of revenues. Of the
remainder, 11 (5 percent) are projected to incur costs exceeding 3
percent of revenues, and 29 (13 percent) are projected to incur costs
exceeding 1 percent, but less than 3 percent of revenues.
Table VIII-3--Financial Impacts of BAT Options on Airports That Deice
[2006 $ millions--218 airports]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of airports with ratio of annualized
compliance costs to operating revenues of: \a\
Total ---------------------------------------------------
Option annualized Not
costs Less than Between 1% Greater analyzed
1% and 3% than 3% \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................. $36.4 178 27 9 3
2.............................................. 110.1 165 30 20 3
3 \c\.......................................... 91.3 174 29 11 3
4.............................................. 105.0 130 25 58 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Number of airports may not sum to 218 due to rounding.
\b\ Airports incurred compliance costs but financial impacts could not be analyzed due to lack of airport
revenue data.
\c\ Proposed option.
Tables VIII-4 and VIII-5 present the projected impact of the rule
on the ability of the airports to finance their debt. To complete this
analysis, EPA first had to distinguish multiple airport owners from
single airport owners. Multiple airport owners might incur costs for
several airports, and debt is typically held at the ownership level,
not at the level of the individual airports. EPA used question B-4 of
the Airport Deicing Questionnaire to
[[Page 44706]]
identify all multiple airport owners, and how many airports under that
ownership received a survey.
EPA found 10 airport owners received surveys for 31 airports; of
these, 9 airport owners received surveys for 21 airports that were
determined to be in-scope of the proposed regulation. All results for
multiple airport owners are presented unweighted because each airport
was individually identified and therefore does not represent any other
airports but itself with respect to ownership. EPA aggregated projected
costs for all in-scope airports under that ownership pattern and
analyzed them using the owning organization's debt service coverage
ratio obtained from the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. The
remaining 93 (unweighted) in-scope airports were evaluated individually
as single-owner airports. Although EPA did not stratify the survey
based on ownership, and therefore the survey weights cannot be
considered statistically reliable for determining the count of single-
owner airports, the weights generally reflect the relative frequency of
single airport ownership. EPA presents both the weighted and unweighted
results for this group of airports.
Some airports did not provide sufficient data to analyze impacts on
the DSCR. This could occur because: (1) The airport does not use debt
to finance capital projects, (2) data were not provided through the
survey or the airport's annual financial report, or (3) data are
available but the pre-regulatory DSCR is less than 1.25. For single-
owner airports, the impact on DSCR could be projected for all airports
expected to incur capital costs under the proposed option. Among multi-
airport owners, the impact on DSCR could be projected for all except
one airport owner that was expected to incur capital costs for three
airports under the proposed option. This airport owner is described in
greater detail below.
Table VIII-4 presents the projected impact of the rule on the
ability of single airport owners to finance their debt. Assuming no
costs are passed through to their air carrier customers, two airports
are projected to incur costs under the proposed rule that would result
in their post-regulatory debt service ratio falling below the threshold
that indicates default. However, one of these airports installed a
deicing pad after the survey was submitted, and therefore would incur
lower compliance costs than projected here. Under the proposed rule, no
single airport owners are projected to be in danger of default when 100
percent of compliance costs are assumed to be passed through to airline
customers.
Table VIII-4--Impact of Financing BAT Options on Airport Debt Service Coverage Ratio--Single Airport Owners
[192 airports]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners with pre-regulatory DSCR
>1.25 & post regulatory DSCR <1.25
Option Incur costs Not analyzed \a\ -----------------------------------
100% CPT 0% CPT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 54 6 0 3
2....................................... 62 6 1 7
3 \b\................................... 55 6 0 3
4....................................... 99 42 0 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Of the 218 airports (weighted), 192 were estimated to be both in-scope, and the only airport controlled by
its ownership. These columns represent the number of those 192 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.
\b\ Proposed option.
Table VIII-5 presents the projected impact of the rule on the
ability of the owner to finance debt for the 6 multi-airport systems
that own the 13 airports projected to incur costs under the proposed
rule. For the 5 airport systems owning the 10 airports projected to
incur costs for which the DSCR analysis could be performed, none of the
four options considered for the proposed rule are projected to have an
impact on the ability of airport authorities to finance debt.
EPA could not analyze one multi-airport system, which is
responsible for five airports projected to incur costs under at least
one option. This is the Rural Aviation System of the Alaska Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities, which owns 256 rural airports.
EPA projects that three of those airports would be affected by the
proposed rule. The Alaska Rural Aviation system does not use debt
financing; therefore, it has no DSCR to analyze. Instead, it relies on
state and federal grants to fund capital expenditures.
Table VIII-5--Impact of Financing BAT Options on Airport Debt Service Coverage Ratio--Multi Airport Owners
[9 airport authorities owning 21 in-scope airports] \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incur costs \b\ Not analyzed \b\ Owners with pre-regulatory
---------------------------------------------------------------- DSCR >1.25 & post regulatory
Option DSCR <1.25
Owners Airports Owners Airports -------------------------------
100% CPT 0% CPT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... 5 11 1 3 0 0
2....................................................... 5 11 1 3 0 0
3 \c\................................................... 6 13 1 3 0 0
[[Page 44707]]
4....................................................... 6 16 1 5 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Because these airports and their ownership were individually identified, the results cannot be assumed to represent any airport owners other than
themselves. Therefore, these results are not weighted.
\b\ Of 114 surveyed airports (unweighted), 21 (unweighted) under the control of 9 distinct ownership authorities were determined to be in-scope of the
proposed rule. These columns represent the number of those airports and the number of airport ownership authorities 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.
\c\ Proposed option.
In light of the foregoing analysis, EPA does not believe that the
projected impacts of the rule on the ability of airports to finance
their debt are significant enough to change our proposed findings on
which BAT options are economically achievable.
F. Economic Impacts for New Sources
As explained in Section VII.F above, EPA has determined that the
proposed NSPS would not impose a barrier to entry, in both the new
runway and new airport scenarios. The costs for a centralized deicing
pad are estimated at ten percent or less of the total cost for a new
runway, and this proportion is even smaller when compared to the cost
of building a new airport. An analysis of these costs is contained in
the record for today's proposal.
G. Cost and Pollutant Reduction Comparisons
EPA compared the projected compliance costs for the proposed rule
with the estimated reduction in pollutants resulting from the effluent
guidelines. Table VIII-6 presents projected compliance costs and
estimated pounds of COD and ammonia removed from airport stormwater
under the proposed rule. Option 3 is expected to reduce COD and ammonia
loads by 45.2 million pounds at an annualized cost of $91.3 million,
for a cost of $2.02 per pound of pollutant removed.
Table VIII-6--Pollutant Removals, Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of BAT Options for Airports That Deice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
pollutant annualized Cost/lb
Option removals costs (2006 $ pollutant
(million lb) mil.) removed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... 26.6 $36.4 $1.37
2............................................................... 36.6 110.1 3.01
3 \a\........................................................... 45.2 91.3 2.02
4............................................................... 47.4 105.0 2.22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Proposed 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 proposal is similar or less expensive than many
guidelines promulgated to date including: Aluminum Forming, $2.42/Lb;
Landfills, $15.00/Lb and; Waste Combustors, $38.83/Lb.
H. Small Business Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA;
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. To determine airport ownership, EPA examined FAA Airport
Data (Form 5010) and the Contact Information data file for National
Flight Data Center (NFDC) facilities, which list the owner of each
airport. EPA matched all 153 surveyed airports (representing 359
airports, both in-scope and out-of-scope) to their owners and
determined that with the exception of one privately owned airport,
ownership is composed of states, county, city governments, and single
and multi-purpose port authorities. Single and multi-purpose port
authorities are quasi-governmental agencies created by governmental
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:
16 surveyed airports representing 76 airports are owned by
small government entities
8 surveyed airports representing 34 airports owned by
small government entities are in the scope of the proposed 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
[[Page 44708]]
the purposes of the RFA; 10 of the 11 surveyed Alaskan airports are not
small by this standard.
EPA projected impacts on these small government entities that own
airports using the revenue test described in Section VIII.D.2. EPA
found that 3 of the 34 in-scope airports owned by small government
entities are expected to incur annualized compliance costs exceeding
three percent of airport operating revenues. These results are
presented in Table VIII-7.
Table VIII-7--Financial Impacts of BPT/BAT Options on Small Airports That Deice \a\
[2006 $ millions--34 airports]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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............................... $1.8 23 8 3 0
2............................... 4.8 23 8 3 0
3 \c\........................... 1.8 23 8 3 0
4............................... 3.0 23 0 11 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\ Proposed option.
As privately owned, for-profit businesses, air carriers are subject
to the small business definitions set forth by the Small Business
Administration's size standards. For EPA's purposes, the size standards
for the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
Scheduled Passenger and Freight Air Transportation (NAICS 481111 and
481112) sectors are appropriate for determining potentially affected
small airlines. Thus, air carriers with fewer than 1,500 employees will
be considered small for the purposes of this analysis.
Available employment data for air carriers are provided by the BTS
in their Employment Statistics--Certificated Carriers report. This data
set does not contain records for all affected air carriers. For some
air carriers with missing data, EPA obtained employment figures from
annual reports or the annual report of the Regional Airline
Association. For the remaining carriers, EPA compared their departure
and enplanement data to the same data for air carriers with employment
data. EPA determined that annual departures could be used as a suitable
proxy for size. Using BTS T-100 data, EPA found 139 U.S. air carriers
had at least one departure from an in-scope airport in 2006. Based on
employment, or annual departures for air carriers without employment
data, EPA estimates that of these 139 U.S. air carriers operating from
in-scope airports in 2006, 36 are not small (27.5 percent) and 103
(72.5 percent) are small business owned.
IX. Airline Impacts
The economic and operational structure of airport deicing differs
significantly from most industries for which EPA has promulgated
effluent limitations and guidelines. For most industries, EPA evaluates
direct impacts to affected entities, and only secondarily considers
impacts on those entities' suppliers and customers. In the case of
airport deicing, the airport is typically the holder of the NPDES
permit and thus responsible for collection and treatment of ADF-
contaminated stormwater; air carriers that use the airport are
occasionally co-permittees, but never the principal permittee at the
airport. However, the air carrier (or a contractor to the air carrier
such as another airline or an FBO) is the entity that uses the ADF at
the airport under rigorous safety guidelines set by the FAA.
Furthermore, in the long run, air carriers (and their passengers) pay
for much of the airport's infrastructure and operating expenses.
Therefore, EPA has chosen to evaluate these secondary impacts of the
proposed regulation on air carriers in addition to airports.
EPA examined impacts to airlines with compliance costs passed
through from airports in the form of higher landing fees. EPA compared
compliance costs with airline operating revenues (``sales test''); this
test was supplemented with a comparison of compliance costs with
operating profit and net income for those airlines with positive
earnings. EPA also analyzed the impact of costs relative to common air
carrier benchmarks for unit measures of cost and capacity such as cost
per available seat-mile. EPA examined impacts of the preferred option
on airline operating revenue between 2004 and 2006. Only in 2005, and
for only one airline out of roughly 120 during that period were
compliance costs greater than three percent of operating revenue. EPA
does not believe that these impacts are significant enough to change
our findings on which BAT options are economically achievable. For a
more detailed discussion of these impacts, see Sections 3.3 and 5.3,
respectively, of the EA.
X. 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 for Proposed Effluent Guidelines and
Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (EIB)). As discussed in
Section VII.E, 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
[[Page 44709]]
incidence of organism 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 include nonylphenol ethoxylates, alcohol ethoxylates, triazoles,
and polyacrylic acid. Because deicer formulations change periodically,
some of the additives EPA identified may not be present in current
formulations. Nevertheless, the properties of the additives EPA
identified may be indicative of deicer additive properties in general.
EPA solicits additional information on the identity of deicer
ingredients, and on the quantities in which they are used in current
formulations. EPA also solicits information about potential
environmental impacts associated with ingredients in deicer
formulations.
Airports in the United States discharge deicing wastewater to a
wide variety of waterbody 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 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 regulatory
proposals to reduce the discharge of pollutants from airport deicing
activities. This assessment is described in detail in the EIB. The
proposed BAT requirement would decrease COD discharges associated with
airport deicing activities by approximately 39.9 million pounds per
year. The proposed BAT requirement would also reduce ammonia discharges
by 4.7 million pounds. The proposed rule would also reduce loadings of
additives in aircraft deicer formulations to the environment.
EPA estimates that a reduction in pollutant loadings will take
place at approximately 70 airports around the country. 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 proposed rule would decrease pollutant loadings to multiple
surface waters currently listed as impaired under sec. 303(d). The
proposal 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.
XI. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Clean Water Act require EPA to
consider non-water-quality environmental impacts (including energy
requirements) associated with effluent limitations guidelines and
standards. To comply with these requirements, EPA considered the
potential impact of the collection and treatment technologies on energy
consumption, air emissions, and solid waste generation. EPA prepared
these analyses only for technologies associated with the BAT and NSPS
requirements.
A. Energy Requirements
Net energy consumption considers electrical requirements for
pumping collected fluid from centralized deicing pads, and electrical
requirements for operating the anaerobic fluidized bed (AFB)
bioreactors and the aerated ponds and fuel requirements for glycol
recovery vehicles (GRVs). Detailed calculations regarding net energy
consumption for the collection and treatment technologies are provided
in a separate memorandum entitled ``Energy Requirements for ADF
Contaminated Stormwater Collection and Treatment Alternatives'' (DCN
AD011167), available in the public record for this rule.
To estimate incremental electrical requirements associated with
pumping collected ADF to either tanks or ponds, EPA assumed airports
would continuously operate three 40-horsepower (hp) electric motors
during each deicing day. EPA also conservatively assumed that all
airports would use pumps rather than allow ADF-impacted stormwater to
flow by gravity to holding tanks or ponds. Using that assumption, EPA
estimated the total incremental electrical usage associated with the
proposed rule would be approximately 1.2 million kilowatt hours per
year (kWh/yr).
EPA developed another relationship between electrical use and
chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal by the AFB bioreactors based on
information provided by Albany International Airport. Using the
information from Albany Airport, EPA estimated the electrical
requirement for COD removal and used that rate to estimate electrical
usage associated with COD removal.
The AFB treatment systems also generate biogas that can be used as
a source of heat when burned in facility boilers or when converted to
electricity using technologies such as microturbines or fuel cells. To
estimate the potential electricity that could be generated if all AFB
treatment systems installed microturbines to generate electricity, EPA
developed a relationship between biogas generation and COD removal
based on data provided by Albany Airport. EPA used these data to
determine the potential energy of the associated biogas.
The comparison of the potential electrical generation from
converting biogas to electricity to the electrical requirements for AFB
operation
[[Page 44710]]
indicates that treatment of ADF-contaminated stormwater could generate
nearly the same amount of electricity that is needed to operate the
treatment systems. Based on this analysis, there will not be a net
increase in electricity to operate the collection and treatment systems
for ADF-contaminated stormwater.
EPA also analyzed fuel use by GRVs collecting ADF-contaminated
stormwater. EPA used Airport Questionnaire data for diesel fuel costs
for GRVs, and then estimated an average diesel fuel use based on the
unit cost for diesel fuel of $2.07/gal.\1\ EPA then estimated annual
fuel usage per gallon of applied ADF to be 0.08 gal/gal ADF applied.
Using this relationship, EPA estimated total incremental No. 2 diesel
fuel consumption at all in-scope airports installing additional
collection equipment to be 604,000 gallons per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This diesel fuel price was the average reported by the
Energy Information Administration for the 2004-05 winter season, the
same period that EPA is analyzing for airport deicing activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA compared incremental diesel fuel use by GRVs at all airports to
diesel fuel use on a national basis. Approximately 25.4 million gallons
per day of No. 2 diesel fuel was consumed in the United States in 2005.
The diesel fuel requirement associated with this proposed rule is less
than 0.005 percent of the annual amount of diesel fuel consumed.
B. Air Emissions
Additional air emissions as a result of the proposed rule could be
attributed to added diesel fuel combustion by GRVs collecting ADF-
contaminated stormwater, from additional jet engine taxi time related
to deicing pads, and from anaerobic treatment of ADF. Emissions from
these sources are discussed below.
1. Emissions From GRV Collection
As discussed in Section XI.A above, EPA conservatively estimated
that GRVs collecting ADF-contaminated stormwater at airports will
consume an additional 604,000 gallons per year of No. 2 diesel fuel. To
estimate air emissions related to combustion of No. 2 diesel fuel in
the internal combustion engines on GRVs, 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 GRVs, EPA first converted the additional
604,000 gallons of diesel fuel to million British Thermal Units (MMBtu)
and then applied the appropriate emission factors. The calculated
annual emissions indicate that an additional 4,781 tons per year of
carbon dioxide (CO2) will be emitted from GRVs combusting
additional diesel fuel to comply with the proposed rule. Carbon dioxide
is the primary greenhouse gas attributed to climate change, and the
6,900 additional tons per year that would be associated with the
proposed rule 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 6,900 tons per year
from GRVs is less than a 0.001 percent increase in the overall
CO2 emissions from all industrial sources.
2. Emissions From Transportation to Aircraft Deicing Pads
To estimate aircraft emissions associated with the additional time
spent taxiing to and from newly installed deicing pad and idling during
deicing, EPA used the seven busiest airports where deicing pads would
likely be installed to comply with the proposed rule. To estimate
aircraft emissions for each airport from transportation to newly
installed deicing pads, input files such as departure information,
types of aircraft being deiced, and deicing days were compiled and
applied to the Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS), an
emission-estimating tool developed by the FAA for activities relative
to airports. Typically, the EDMS input file quantifies aircraft
activity relative to an aircraft's landing and takeoff (LTO) cycle. The
cycle begins when the aircraft approaches the airport on its descent
from cruising altitude, then lands and taxis to the gate, where it
idles during passenger deplaning. The cycle continues as the aircraft
idles during passenger boarding, taxis back out onto the runway, takes
off, and ascends (climbout) to cruising altitude. Thus, the six
specific operating modes in an LTO cycle are as follows:
Approach;
Taxi/idle-in;
Taxi/idle-out;
Idling;
Takeoff; and
Climbout.
The LTO cycle provides a basis for calculating aircraft emissions.
During each mode of operation, an aircraft engine operates at a
specific power setting and fuel consumption rate for a given aircraft
make and model. Emissions for one complete cycle are calculated using
emission factors for each operating mode for each specific aircraft
engine combined with the typical period of time the aircraft is in the
operating mode.
For this assessment, EPA ran the EDMS model using default time-in-
mode values for each component of the LTO cycle. Next, the Agency
adjusted the time-in-mode values in the model to account for additional
time spent traveling to the deicing pad (15 minutes), engine idling
while deicing (30 minutes), and taxing away from the deicing pad (15
minutes) and reran the model with these adjusted time-in-mode values.
Then, EPA subtracted the baseline model run from the second model run
to estimate the additional emissions associated with deicing.
EPA then adjusted these values to reflect the snow or freezing
precipitation (SOFP) days for each airport by multiplying the annual
values by the SOFP days divided by 365 days per year.
EPA also estimated total annual LTO aircraft emissions for the
seven airports to compare aircraft emissions associated only with
deicing. The calculations indicate that the proposed rule could
increase carbon monoxide emissions from aircraft at the impacted
airports by as much as 6.9 percent due to additional ground-time needed
for pad deicing. Although the annual percentage increase in criteria
pollutant emissions from the seven airports included in this analysis
is a concern, the actual increase in emissions (e.g., 903 tons per year
of carbon monoxide) is insignificant when compared to total criteria
pollutant emissions for the aircraft sector. For example, in 2002, EPA
estimated total carbon monoxide emissions from the aircraft sector at
approximately 260,000 tons. The increase in criteria pollutant
emissions resulting from additional aircraft deicing time account
amounts to less than a 0.3 percentage increase in the aircraft sector
annual criteria pollutant emissions.
3. Emissions From AFB Treatment Systems
Anaerobic digestion of glycols found in ADF contaminated stormwater
generates biogas containing approximately 60 percent methane and 40
percent carbon dioxide. Airports installing AFBs for treatment of ADF
contaminated stormwater are expected to burn a portion of the gas in
on-site 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 carbon dioxide, the
primary greenhouse gas. EPA calculates 17,300 additional tons per
[[Page 44711]]
year for 60% ADF capture, 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 17,300 tons per year of carbon dioxide from AFB treatment is
less than 0.002 percent of the annual industrial carbon dioxide
emissions nationwide.
C. Solid Waste Generation
AFB bioreactors will generate sludge that will require disposal,
likely in an off-site landfill. To estimate annual sludge generation by
the AFB bioreactors that may be installed at airports to treat ADF-
contaminated stormwater, EPA first estimated the potential COD removal
for the proposed 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 will be produced in
2010. EPA estimates that AFB bioreactors treating ADF-contaminated
stormwater will increase biosolids generation in the United States by
less than 0.01 percent.
XII. Regulatory Implementation
A. Relationship of ELGs to NPDES Permits
Effluent guidelines act as a primary mechanism to control the
discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S. Once finalized, the
regulations would be applied to airports through incorporation in
individual or general NPDES permits issued by EPA or authorized states
or tribes under section 402 of the Act.
The Agency has developed the limitations for this proposed rule to
cover the discharge of pollutants for this point source category. In
specific cases, the NPDES permit authority may elect to establish
technology-based permit limits for pollutants not covered by this
regulation. In addition, if state water quality standards or other
provisions of state or federal law require limits on pollutants not
covered by this regulation (or require more stringent limits or
standards on covered pollutants to achieve compliance), the permit
authority must apply those effluent limitations or standards.
For individual permits, ELG provisions are typically incorporated
when those permits are renewed, although permit authorities may require
modification upon promulgation.
B. Best Management Practices
Sections 304(e), 308(a), 402(a), and 501(a) of the CWA authorize
the Administrator to prescribe 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
best management practices to control or abate the discharge of
pollutants when numeric limitations and standards are infeasible. In
addition, section 402(a)(2), read in concert with 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.
Dikes, curbs, and other control measures are being used at some
airport facilities to contain leaks and spills as part of good
``housekeeping'' practices. However, on a facility-by-facility basis a
permit writer may choose to incorporate BMPs into the permit. See the
TDD for this proposed rule for a detailed discussion of pollution
prevention and best management practices used by airports.
C. 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) and for indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.16
and 403.17.
D. Variances and Modifications
The CWA requires application of effluent limitations established
pursuant to section 301 or pretreatment standards of section 307 to all
direct and indirect dischargers. However, the statute provides for the
modification of these national requirements in a limited number of
circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established administrative
mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the application of
the national effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards
for categories of existing sources for toxic, conventional, and
nonconventional pollutants.
1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variance
EPA, with the concurrence of the State, may develop effluent
limitations or standards different from the otherwise applicable
requirements if an individual discharging facility is fundamentally
different with respect to factors considered in establishing the
limitation of standards applicable to the individual facility. Such a
modification is known as a ``fundamentally different factors'' (FDF)
variance. EPA, in its initial implementation of the effluent guidelines
program, provided for the FDF modifications in regulations. These were
variances from the BCT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for toxic
and nonconventional pollutants and BPT limitations for conventional
pollutants for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA
provided for FDF modifications from pretreatment standards. 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
sec. 301(n) of the Act. This provision explicitly authorizes
modifications of the otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or
categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources, if a facility
is fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in
section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in
establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment
[[Page 44712]]
standard. 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 or standard 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 or standard.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 125, subpart D, authorizing the
Regional Administrators to establish alternative limitations and
standards, 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 facility is fundamentally different. The Agency must determine
whether, based on one or more of these factors, the facility in
question is fundamentally different from the facilities 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. EPA regulations provide for an FDF
variance for indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. The conditions for
approval of a request to modify applicable pretreatment standards and
factors considered are the same as those for direct dischargers. 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. The criteria for applying for and evaluating applications
for variances from categorical pretreatment standards are included in
the pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9). 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 or PSNS.
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,'' 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.
XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in today's proposed rule
have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR)
document has been prepared by EPA and has been assigned EPA ICR No.
2326.01. Proposed Sec. 449.20 would require airports to collect ADF
usage data and demonstrate compliance with requirements for ADF capture
and urea-based pavement deicers.
EPA estimates it would take an annual average of 14,213 hours and
$706,051 for airport respondents, and 11,440 hours and $377,420 for
airline respondents to collect and report the information required by
the proposed rule. This estimate is based on average labor rates from
EPA's airport questionnaire for the airport personnel involved in
collecting and reporting the information required. EPA estimates it
would take an average of 218 hours and $7,195 for permit authorities to
review the information submitted in response to requirements in the
proposed rule as part of permit applications, renewals, and NOIs. EPA
estimates that there would 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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OW-
2004-0038. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Since OMB
is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after August 28, 2009, a comment to OMB is best assured of having
its full effect if OMB receives it by September 28, 2009. The final
rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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
[[Page 44713]]
include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule
on small entities, EPA determined that all airports expected to be
within scope 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 matching each airport-owning
governmental entity with its population, EPA estimates that 34 (8
unweighted) of 218 (114 unweighted) airports in the scope of the
proposed rule, or 16 percent, are owned by small government entities.
EPA projected impacts on these small airports using the revenue test
described in Section VIII.D.2. EPA found that 3 of the 34 small in-
scope airports are expected to incur annualized compliance costs
exceeding three percent of airport operating revenues. After
considering the economic impact of today's proposed rule on small
entities, including consideration of alternative regulatory approaches,
I certify that this action will not have 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 National Plan of Integrated
Airport Systems (2007-2011), there are approximately 2,800 public use
general aviation and reliever airports in the U.S., 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
the proposed regulation. EPA also estimates that in addition to the 34
small government-owned primary commercial airports, another 42 primary
commercial airports are owned by small government entities, but will be
out-of-scope of the proposed regulation because little or no ADF is
used at those airports.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed 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 VIII and the TDD, the annual cost of the
proposal is $91.3 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
sec. 203 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
proposed rule focuses on the airports that are the largest users of
ADF. The proposed rule is not projected to exceed $100 million in
aggregate annual compliance costs. Further, as discussed in Section
XIII.C above, EPA has determined the rule will not have significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
This proposed rule 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 Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule would not
alter the basic state-federal scheme established in the Clean Water Act
under which EPA authorizes states to carry out the NPDES permit
program. EPA expects the proposed rule would have little effect on the
relationship between, or the distribution of power and responsibilities
among, the federal and state governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 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 proposed rule contains no Federal
mandates for Tribal governments and does not impose any enforceable
duties on Tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
Tribal governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed
rule from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to rules that are
economically significant according to EO 12866 and involve a health or
safety risk that may disproportionately affect children. This action is
not subject to EO 13045 because it does not satisfy either criterion.
H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 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
described in Section XI of today's proposal. EPA determined that the
additional fuel usage would be insignificant, relative to the total
fuel consumption by airports and airlines, and the total annual U.S.
fuel consumption.
[[Page 44714]]
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d); 15 U.S.C. 272
note) 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 Agency is not aware of any consensus-based technical standards
for the types of controls contained in today's proposal. EPA welcomes
comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically,
invites the public to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in
this regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 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 proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations. The proposal would
increase 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 proposed rule will reduce the
negative effects of discharges from airports to the nation's waters, to
benefit all of society, including minority communities.
XIV. Solicitation of Data and Comments
A. General and Specific Comment Solicitation
EPA solicits comments on issues specifically identified in the
preamble as well as any other issues that are not specifically
addressed in today's notice. Comments are most helpful when accompanied
by specific examples or supporting data. In addition, EPA solicits
information and data on the following topics.
1. Airport-specific data on current ADF capture rates.
2. Technology-specific data on ADF capture rates.
3. Available ADF is defined at proposed 40 CFR 449.2 in terms of
percentages. EPA solicits comments and data to support any alternative
figures or flexibility for a permit writer to modify these percentages
on a case-by-case basis. In addition, please provide comment on whether
the permit writer should have the flexibility to modify the 80 percent
default based on site-specific conditions and please suggest
appropriate criteria on which to base the decision.
4. The identity and amount of the chemicals in formulations of ADF.
5. EPA invites comment on other possible minimum threshold criteria
for the scope of the rule, such as the amount of ADF used, or number of
deicing operational days. Please provide a rationale for any suggested
alternate criteria.
6. Detailed information on additional best management practices
that improve collection of ADF, and/or control and treatment of ADF
discharges.
7. Information on start-up and O&M costs of pollution prevention
technologies that improve collection of ADF or reduce use of ADF, such
as infrared heating systems, and similar information about technologies
that improve the cost-effectiveness of aircraft deicing and anti-icing
practices.
8. Information about deicing practices at military facilities,
including ADF usage, other operational characteristics and
environmental impacts to help us decide whether to include them in the
scope of this rule. If EPA decides to expand the scope, it may solicit
additional public comment on the application of these requirements to
military facilities.
9. Recommended operational practices for GRVs and deicing pads.
10. For the ADF collection requirement in proposed Sec. 449.10,
EPA may extend the usual 30-day compliance date to allow the additional
time typically needed by publicly owned airport authorities to arrange
financing for capital improvements. The extended compliance date could
be as much as three years from date of promulgation. The Agency invites
comment on the appropriate compliance period for this provision, and
recommendations for interim measures.
11. Site-specific data and documentation on space limitations,
available adjacent land and possible cost, along with recommendations
for alternative ADF collection techniques, if deicing pads are not
feasible.
12. Environmental impacts or safety issues associated with use of
alternative pavement deicers instead of urea-based deicers.
13. To what extent, if any, do airports anticipate they will choose
to monitor their discharges for ammonia rather than certify non-use of
urea?
14. Deicing for safe taxiing. For airports choosing to comply with
technology specifications as proposed in Sec. 449.20(b)(1), the
proposed rule would require all deicing activities to be conducted in
locations were the ADF is actively collected, either by GRV or
centralized pads, depending on the specific requirements. However,
there may be situations where ice build-up prevents an aircraft from
taxiing to the location where collection is conducted. For such
situations, the proposed rule would allow up to 25 gallons of
normalized ADF to be applied to allow for safe taxiing, without
actively collecting the spent ADF. This volume is based on a current
requirement at Denver International Airport. EPA requests comment on
whether this is the appropriate ADF amount.
15. The alternative technology provisions in proposed Sec.
449.20(b)(2) would require approval by the permit authority. EPA
requests comment on whether any airports intend to use these
provisions, and whether these provisions would be burdensome to permit
authorities.
16. Criteria used to select data as the basis of the proposed
effluent limitations for COD and the compliance alternative for
ammonia. EPA also requests comment on whether data from start-up
conditions should be included as a basis of the limitations.
17. Substitution of the weekly average effluent limitation for the
monthly average effluent limitation for COD. EPA is proposing this
substitution because of compliance monitoring concerns. EPA requests
comments that identify other alternatives that may better address the
issues with compliance monitoring, but still provide ongoing incentive
for airports to target the system performance to the long-term average
concentration of COD.
[[Page 44715]]
18. EPA requests comment on whether there are situations, such as
extreme weather, in which operational or safety concerns would pose a
challenge to the complete elimination of urea use for airfield pavement
deicing. If so, please provide specific data or information documenting
these concerns.
19. EPA requests comment on its proposal to treat new runway
construction at existing airports as new sources. EPA specifically
requests comment on its proposed determination that a new runway would
be ``substantially independent of an existing source at the same
site.'' EPA also requests any data relevant to the question of whether
the proposed NSPS would pose a barrier to entry for new runway
construction (e.g., at smaller airports within the rule scope) or
otherwise pose a barrier to entry for new sources.
20. EPA requests comment on whether there are situations where it
may or may not be achievable for an airport with one or more deicing
pads to use them for all commercial flights without exception. Should
some provision be included in the rule to accommodate such situations?
Commenters should give specific examples of such situations and explain
clearly why it would not be feasible or economically achievable to use
deicing pads for all commercial flights without exception.
21. EPA requests comment on whether there are airports in semi-warm
climates for which de-icing is only required occasionally (at most
several days per year), and whether it would be appropriate to make
some provision for such airports, such as including a criterion related
to ADF usage, number of de-icing days, or departures during certain
seasons, in the scope criteria for the rule. In suggesting any such
criteria, commenters should be mindful of implementation issues, such
as availability and verification of appropriate data.
XV. Guidelines for Submission of Analytical Data
EPA requests that commenters on today's proposed rule submit
analytical, flow, and aircraft departure data to supplement data
collected by the Agency during the regulatory development process. To
ensure that EPA may effectively evaluate these data, EPA suggests these
guidelines for submission of data.
A. Types of Data Requested
EPA requests paired influent and effluent treatment data for each
of the technologies identified in the technology options (see Section
VII.B) as well as any additional technologies applicable to the
treatment of deicing and anti-icing wastewater. EPA prefers paired
influent and effluent treatment data, but solicits unpaired data as
well. EPA will not evaluate data from systems treating only non-deicing
wastewater (e.g., sanitary wastewater).
For the systems treating deicing wastewater, EPA requests paired
influent and effluent treatment data from samples of flowing wastewater
streams. This includes end-of-pipe treatment technologies and in-
process treatment, recycling, or water reuse. If commenters submit only
effluent data, commenters should provide evidence that the influent is
highly concentrated. EPA also prefers individual measurements, rather
than averages, to better evaluate variability, but will consider
averages if individual measurements are unavailable. EPA prefers that
the measurements are for 24-hour composite samples, but also will
consider data for grab samples.
EPA prefers that commenters submit data in an electronic format. In
addition to providing the measurement of the pollutant in each sample,
EPA requests that sites provide the detection limit (rather than
specifying zero or ``ND'') if the pollutant is not detected in the
wastestream. Identify each measurement with a sample collection date,
the sampling point location, and the flow rate at that location. For
each sample or pollutant, identify the analytical method used.
In support of the treatment data, commenters should submit the
following items if they are available: A process diagram of the
treatment system that includes the sampling point locations; treatment
chemical addition rates; laboratory reports; influent and effluent flow
rates for each treatment unit during the sampling period; sludge or
waste oil generation rates; a brief discussion of the treatment
technology sampled; and a list of deicing operations contributing to
the sampled wastestream. If available, information and/or estimates of
capital cost, annual (operation and maintenance) cost, and treatment
capacity should be included for each treatment unit within the system.
If specific flows or costs are not available but can reasonably be
estimated, commenters should provide the assumptions used for the
estimation procedure.
B. Analytes Requested
EPA considered metal, organic, conventional, and other
nonconventional pollutant parameters for regulation. Based on
analytical data collected, EPA initially identified 21 pollutants of
concern for deicing operations (see Section VII.C and the TDD). The
Agency requests analytical data for any of the pollutants of concern
and for any other pollutant parameters that commenters believe are of
concern. Of particular interest are COD, BOD5, glycols,
ammonia as nitrogen, and pH data. Commenters should submit data
acquired with EPA or equivalent methods (generally, those approved at
40 CFR Part 136 for compliance monitoring), and should document the
analytical method used for all data submissions.
C. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Requirements
Although EPA requests and prefers that submissions of analytical
data include any available documentation of QA/QC procedures, EPA will
consider data submitted without detailed QA/QC information. If
commenters sample wastewaters to respond to this proposal, EPA
encourages them to provide detailed documentation of the QA/QC checks
for each sample. EPA also requests that collection and analysis of ten
percent field duplicate samples to assess sampling variability, and
data for equipment blanks for volatile organic pollutants when
automatic compositors are used to collect samples.
Appendix A: Abbreviations and Definitions Used in This Document
ADF--Aircraft deicing fluid (includes anti-icing fluid)
AFB--Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment technology
AIP--Airport Improvement Program
BAT--Best available technology economically achievable, as defined
by sec. 301(b)(2)(A) and sec. 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA
BOD5--Biochemical oxygen demand
CAFR--Comprehensive annual financial reports
COD--Chemical oxygen demand
CPT--Cost pass-through
CWA--Clean Water Act
DSCR--Debt service coverage ratio
FAA--Federal Aviation Administration
FBO--Fixed base operator
GARB--General airport revenue bonds
LTO--Landing and takeoff cycle
Net income--Operating profit minus interest, taxes, depreciation,
and non-operating profits and losses
NOI--Notice of Intent to discharge under a general permit (40 CFR
122.28(b)(2))
NSPS--New Source Performance Standards, as defined by sec. 306 of
the CWA
O&M--Operations and maintenance
Operating profit--Revenues minus cost of providing those services
Outfall--The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from which a
facility effluent discharges into receiving waters
[[Page 44716]]
PFC--Passenger facility charges
Revenues--Money received for services rendered
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RPM--Revenue passenger miles
RTM--Revenue ton miles
SOFP--Snow or freezing precipitation
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 449
Environmental protection, Airport deicing, Airport, Airline, Waste
treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.
Dated: August 17, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackon,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended by adding part
449 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 reflecting the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
449.11 New source performance standards (NSPS).
449.20 Monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Subpart B--[Reserved]
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 with at least 1,000 annual scheduled
commercial air carrier jet departures.
Sec. 449.2 General definitions.
The following definitions apply to this part:
Aircraft deicing fluid (ADF) means a fluid 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 jet departures means the average number of commercial jet
aircraft that take off from an airport on an annual basis, as tabulated
by the Federal Aviation Administration, calculated over the five-year
period prior to submittal of a permit application or NOI.
Annual normalized ADF usage means the average amount of normalized
aircraft deicing fluid used annually, calculated over the five year
period prior to submittal of a permit application or Notice of Intent.
Available ADF means 80 percent of the sprayed deicing fluid and 10
percent of the sprayed anti-icing fluid.
Certification statement means a written submission to the Director
stating that the discharger does not use airfield deicing products that
contain urea.
COD means Chemical Oxygen Demand.
Deicing for safe taxiing means the minimal extent of deicing
activity that would remove snow or ice to the level needed to prevent
damage to a taxiing aircraft, and that is performed at a location not
having ADF collection equipment.
Deicing operations mean procedures and practices to remove or
prevent any accumulation of snow or ice on:
(1) An aircraft; or
(2) Paved surfaces within an airport's aircraft movement area
(runway, taxiway, apron, or ramp).
New source. For the purpose of the definitions at 40 CFR 122.2 and
40 CFR 122.29(b)(1), a new source includes:
(1) Any new Primary Airport constructed after [date of
promulgation]; and
(2) Any new runway constructed at a Primary Airport, the deicing
operations associated with the departures on the new runway and the
deicing of paved surfaces associated with the new runway.
Normalized aircraft deicing fluid means ADF less any water added by
the manufacturer or customer before ADF application.
Notice of Intent (NOI) means a Notice of Intent to discharge under
a general permit, as described at 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2).
Percent capture requirement means the requirement in Sec. Sec.
449.10 and 449.11 for the permittee to collect at least 60 percent or
20 percent (as applicable) of the available ADF.
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 subject to this part must comply with the following
requirements representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best available technology economically
achievable (BAT).
(a) Collection of runoff from aircraft deicing. (1) All dischargers
subject to this Part, with 10,000 or greater annual departures and
annual normalized ADF usage of 460,000 gallons or greater, must collect
at least 60 percent of available ADF and comply with applicable
discharge standards in paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) All dischargers subject to this part, with annual departures of
10,000 or greater, and annual normalized ADF usage less than 460,000
gallons, must collect at least 20 percent of the available ADF and
comply with applicable discharge standards in paragraph (b) of this
section for all the collected ADF.
(b) Treatment of collected runoff from aircraft deicing. Except for
ADF collected and transported to off-site treatment facilities, any
existing point source subject to this Part must achieve the numeric
effluent limitations in Table I. These limitations must be met for all
ADF collected pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
Compliance must be measured at the outfall of the on-site treatment
system utilized for meeting these limitations:
Table I--BAT Limitations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily maximum Weekly average
Wastestream Pollutant or pollutant property mg/L mg/L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Deicing.............................. COD............................. 271 154
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Airfield pavement discharges. Except as provided in Sec.
449.10(d), any discharger subject to this Part must certify that it
does not use airfield deicing products that contain urea. The
responsible officer as defined in 40 CFR
[[Page 44717]]
122.22 must sign this certification statement.
(d) Compliance alternative for airfield BAT requirements. A
discharger may select and implement the following compliance
alternative, which is deemed to meet the relevant BAT requirement
specified in paragraph (c) of this section:
(1) Airfield pavement discharges must achieve the numeric
limitations for ammonia in Table II.
Table II--BAT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant or pollutant Daily maximum
Wastestream property mg/L
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airfield Pavement Deicing...... Ammonia as Nitrogen.... 14.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 449.11 New source performance standards (NSPS).
New sources subject to this Part must achieve the following new
source performance standards:
(a) Collection of runoff from aircraft deicing. All new sources
subject to this Part, with annual departures of 10,000 or greater,
shall collect at least 60 percent of available ADF and comply with
applicable discharge standards in paragraph (b) of this section for all
collected ADF.
(b) Treatment of collected runoff from aircraft deicing. Except for
ADF collected and transported to off-site treatment facilities, any new
source subject to this Part must achieve the new source performance
standards in Table III. These standards must be met for all ADF
collected pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section. Compliance must be
measured at the outfall of the on-site treatment system utilized for
meeting these standards:
Table III--NSPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily maximum Weekly average
Wastestream Pollutant or pollutant property mg/L mg/L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Deicing.............................. COD............................. 271 154
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Airfield pavement discharges. Except as provided in Sec.
449.11(d), any new source subject to this Part must certify that it
does not use airfield deicing products that contain urea. The
responsible officer as defined in 40 CFR 122.22 must sign this
certification statement.
(d) Compliance alternative for airfield NSPS requirement. A
discharger may select and implement the following compliance
alternative, which is deemed to meet the relevant NSPS requirement
specified in paragraph (c) of this section:
(1) Airfield pavement discharges must achieve the numeric
limitations for ammonia in Table IV.
Table IV--NSPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant or pollutant Daily maximum
Wastestream property mg/L mg/L
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airfield Pavement Deicing...... Ammonia as Nitrogen.... 14.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) [Reserved]
Sec. 449.20 Monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) Reporting ADF use. Dischargers subject to Sec. 449.10 or Sec.
449.11 must report the annual normalized ADF usage when submitting a
permit renewal application.
(b) Demonstrating the percent of ADF collected. Except as provided
in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, the Director shall select one of the
following three methods and specify it in the permit as the required
method for the permittee to demonstrate compliance with the percent
capture requirement in Sec. 449.10 or Sec. 449.11 as applicable.
(1) The permittee shall demonstrate that it is operating and
maintaining one of the following ADF collection technologies according
to the technical specifications set forth in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and
(ii) of this section. These technical specifications shall be expressly
set forth as requirements in the permit. This demonstration constitutes
compliance by the permittee with the applicable percent capture
requirement without the permittee having to determine the numeric
percentage of ADF that it has collected.
(i) Glycol Recovery Vehicle (GRV). Operation of a GRV in accordance
with these technical specifications is sufficient to demonstrate
compliance with a requirement to collect at least 20 percent of the
available ADF:
(A) All deicing activities shall take place in an area where
available ADF is actively collected by GRVs, unless deicing for safe
taxiing is also required. When deicing for safe taxiing is required,
the volume of ADF used must not exceed 25 gallons of normalized ADF per
aircraft.
(B) An emulsifier must be used to aid in ADF recovery, in
accordance with manufacturer requirements.
(C) ADF collection by GRV shall commence as soon after deicing
activities begin, and as is practicable and safe.
(D) The permittee shall ensure that GRVs are maintained in
accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and shall inspect
them at the beginning and end of each deicing season to verify that
proper maintenance is taking place.
(ii) Centralized Deicing Pad. Operation of a centralized deicing
pad
[[Page 44718]]
collection system in accordance with these technical specifications is
sufficient to demonstrate compliance with a requirement to collect at
least 60 percent of the available ADF.
(A) All aircraft deicing shall take place on a centralized deicing
pad, with the exception of deicing for safe taxiing.
(B) The volume of ADF used while deicing for safe taxiing shall not
exceed 25 gallons of normalized ADF per aircraft.
(C) Drainage valves associated with the centralized deicing pad
shall be activated to collect spent ADF before deicing activities
commence.
(D) Deicing facilities shall be sized to accommodate the airport's
peak hourly departure rate.
(E) The minimum width of the centralized deicing pad shall equal
the upper wingspan of the most demanding airplane design group using
the deicing pad.
(F) The minimum length of the centralized deicing pad shall equal
the fuselage length of the most demanding aircraft using the pad.
(G) Each centralized deicing pad must be equipped with a fluid
collection system, such as a perimeter trench and diversion valve, to
capture spent ADF and ADF-contaminated water.
(2) Alternate technology or specifications. (i) The Director, on a
case-by-case basis, may require:
(A) The use of a different ADF collection technology from the
technologies specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; or
(B) The use of the same technology, but with different
specifications for operation and maintenance; or
(C) The use of an alternative pollution prevention technology that
may result in a reduction of applied ADF relative to current practices
at the facility. At the Director's discretion, this reduction may be
applied towards the collection requirement.
(ii) The Director shall set forth technical specifications for
proper operation and maintenance of the chosen collection technology
and these technical specifications must be expressly included as
requirements in the permit. The permittee must 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 specify an alternate technology
under this subsection, the permittee must demonstrate to the Director's
satisfaction that the alternate technology will achieve the percent
capture requirement applicable under the permit.
(3) The permittee shall be required to monitor periodically, by
means deemed acceptable by the Director, and at a frequency determined
by the Director, the amount of ADF sprayed and the amount of available
ADF collected in order to determine the compliance with the percent
capture requirement.
(c) Airfield pavement discharge certification. Except as provided
in Sec. Sec. 449.10(d) and 449.11(d), dischargers subject to Sec.
449.10 or Sec. 449.11 must submit a certification statement that they
do not use airfield deicing products that contain urea. The discharger
must provide the certification statement to the Director when
submitting a permit renewal application and on an annual basis.
(d) Monitoring requirements. Dischargers subject to Sec. 449.10 or
Sec. 449.11 must conduct compliance monitoring to demonstrate
compliance with the COD limitation.
(1) If a discharger chooses to comply with the compliance
alternative specified in Sec. Sec. 449.10(d) or 449.11(d), the
discharger must conduct compliance monitoring to demonstrate compliance
with the alternative ammonia limitations.
(e) Recordkeeping. The permittee must maintain on-site, for a
period of five years from the date they are created, records
documenting compliance with paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
Subpart B--[Reserved]
[FR Doc. E9-20291 Filed 8-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P