By: Cynthia Palmer, Senior Analyst, Petrochemicals, Moms Clean Air Force
Date: March 25, 2024
About: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0183
To: Michael S. Regan, EPA Administrator
Dear Administrator Regan,
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources -- Large Municipal Waste Combustors rule.
We are pleased that EPA is proposing to tighten its weak and outdated air pollution standards for “large municipal waste combustors.” Facilities in this highest-volume category of trash incinerators burn more than 250 tons of municipal solid waste per day. The new standards would increase the stringency of the pollution controls for eight pollutants: cadmium, mercury, lead, particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, dioxin/furans, and nitrogen oxides.
EPA’s proposed rule is long overdue. The agency is required to update its waste combustor standards every five years, but nearly 20 years have gone by since these standards were last revised. EPA’s first update of the emission standards for its large MWC rule, in 2006, used the same approach that the D.C. Circuit Court had previously rejected in other cases. EPA admitted that the rule was flawed, and committed to fix the rule’s defects. In the intervening years, large municipal waste incinerators have continued to operate with long-outdated, heavily polluting technology, and some are illegally burning medical and industrial waste in addition to municipal trash.
There are 57 large municipal waste facilities nationwide. They are located across the country with major concentrations in FL (9), NY (7), PA (6), MA (5), NJ (4), CT (4), MN (3) and VA (3).
It is good news that EPA is proposing to reduce the dioxins, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and other air pollutants from incinerators across the country. Unfortunately, the proposed rule is still no match for the vast amounts of hazardous air pollution, greenhouse gases, and hazardous wastes produced by these facilities. Many of these incinerators are located in historically marginalized communities already overburdened with dirty air from toxic industrial facilities.
In the almost two decades since the incinerator standards were last updated, municipal trash has become more toxic as the concentration of plastic in the waste stream has increased. Thus the proportion of plastic in the waste stream may be even higher than appears in EPA’s tidy pie charts from 2018.1
Officially, plastics were 16 percent (by weight).
But a closer examination of the categories reveals that the real number was likely closer to 30 percent plastic (or more) because many materials -- the leathers, rubbers, textiles -- are largely made from plastic. Even paper envelopes have plastic windows these days.
In particular, (1) More than half of textiles are fossil-fuel based synthetic fibers (plastics). Several sources suggest the amount of clothes and other textiles made from plastic is roughly 68 percent. (2) 70 percent of rubber these days is synthetic (mostly styrene- and butadiene-based plastics). 75 percent of leather is synthetic (polyurethane and PVC plastic). (3) Miscellaneous and “other” waste categories may contain plastic waste. (4) Undoubtedly there is additional plastic in the remaining categories as well, for example glass bottles with plastic spouts may count as “glass.” So as of 2018, it appears that at least 30 percent by weight of the waste burned in municipal waste incinerators was made of plastic.
Plastics waste is on track to triple by 2050.2 When plastic is burned, it releases particulates, dioxins, heavy metals, PFAS chemicals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and other harmful air pollutants, all of which have well-documented harmful effects on human health.3
More than 13,000 chemicals are used in plastics production. Extensive scientific review of an initial 7,000 of these chemicals shows that more than 3,200 have one or more hazardous properties of concern.4 Yet EPA regulates waste incinerators for only 9 air pollutants.5 We urge EPA to expand the list of chemicals that are regulated. The Clean Air Act explicitly requires EPA to regulate emissions of polycyclic organic matter (such as PAHs) and PCBs, but EPA has not done so. We urge EPA to add polycyclic organic matter and PCBs. In addition, we ask EPA to monitor6 and control the toxic forever chemicals known as PFAS. Researchers are finding7 that rather than break down8 all the PFAS9 chemicals in plastic waste, incinerators can release them10 through the stacks into surrounding communities. Incineration of some types of PFAS has also been shown to release volatile and toxic by-products such as 1-H-perfluoroheptane, as well as dioxins and furans.11
EPA should tighten the standards (go beyond the “Maximum Achievable Control Technology floors”) for lead, cadmium, mercury, dioxins, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and other dangerous pollutants. It is absolutely feasible to pollute less than the allowable federal amounts -- some incinerators are already doing just that, under their state permits -- so there is no reason that EPA should allow such high levels of pollution.
EPA should require continuous emissions monitoring for all regulated pollutants. The technology to do so has existed for years, but EPA has kept Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems optional for most pollutants, resulting in barely any incinerators monitoring pollutants they’re not required to track. EPA requires only the emissions data for CO, NOX, and SO2 to be collected continuously. For dioxins and other toxic chemicals, EPA lets companies get away with monitoring only one time per year -- for six hours – giving them the opportunity to adjust the timing and the waste stream to ensure the purity of their emissions. EPA’s reasoning for this minimalist approach is that continuous air monitoring devices “have not been extensively applied commercially and lack the extensive track record of the more established [continuous air monitors].” If not required to use these monitoring technologies, however, U.S. incinerators will never develop a domestic track record. Incinerators in other parts of the world are required to continuously monitor for multiple pollutants.
We are pleased to see that where EPA does require continuous emissions monitoring systems -- for NOX, SO2, and CO -- EPA proposes to eliminate its exclusions for data collected during Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM). This includes periods when the combustor is operating but no monitoring data are recorded due to monitor malfunctions – such incidents would be considered deviations or violations. If EPA requires the continuous monitoring of more pollutants, as we ask for, then similarly there should not be an SSM exclusion for those pollutants.
EPA should require incinerators to separate materials before loading all the waste into their furnaces. Pre-combustion controls should sort out PVC and other chlorinated plastics and materials that emit heavy metals, dioxins, hydrogen chloride, phosgene, and other hazardous air pollutants when burned.
Additionally, it is absurd to be burning food and other organic waste when it can be beneficially diverted to composting facilities. Roughly 22 percent of the municipal solid waste that gets incinerated is food waste.12
As EPA writes on its website,
“Incineration [of food waste] is one of the least preferred pathways because valuable nutrients in wasted food are not recovered. Though incineration produces energy, wasted food makes for a poor feedstock because it is so wet and produces little energy compared to other municipal solid waste.”13
Paper, cardboard, metals, and glass should all be recycled. In leaving out pre-combustion controls, EPA is missing a huge opportunity to properly manage our municipal waste streams.
EPA needs to revise the incinerator standards to prevent fires and other incidents, and to protect workers and surrounding communities.
Examples of safety provisions that can be required include:
- community emergency response plans
- facility installation of sensors, sorting, and inspection technology
- thermal imaging cameras, and
- fire suppression technology.
EPA should also strengthen the lax training and certification requirements for facility operators, supervisors, and other facility personnel.
We urge EPA to add municipal waste combustors, pyrolysis units, and other incinerators to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The TRI is the EPA’s tracking inventory for hazardous chemicals released by industrial facilities. TRI makes data on toxic pollution available to the public and to decisionmakers. We support the petition from the Energy Justice Network.14
We note that pyrolysis and other combustion units that burn plastics waste are specifically exempted from EPA’s Large Municipal Waste Combustor rule, as are cement kilns that fire municipal solid waste. We urge EPA to remove these exemptions. Plastics pyrolysis incinerators and cement kilns burn some of the most toxic components of the waste stream; they should not be allowed to sidestep the critical air pollution controls of the Clean Air Act.
We are pleased that EPA is proceeding with its rulemaking for large municipal waste incinerators. On behalf of our more than 1.5 million members, Moms Clean Air Force is calling on EPA to finalize the strongest possible standards to protect people from the deadly chemicals released by burning plastics and other wastes.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Palmer
Senior Analyst, Petrochemicals
Moms Clean Air Force
Sources:
1 EPA (2023, Nov. 22) National Overview: Facts and Figures on Materials, Wastes and Recycling.
https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figuresmaterial
2 Durán González, D. (2023, September). Reducing Plastic Production to Achieve Climate Goals: Key Considerations for the Plastics Treaty Negotiations. Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/wpcontent/uploads/2023/09/Reducing-Plastic-Production-to-Achieve-Climate-Goals_Sept21_V5.pdf
3 Landrigan, P. J., Raps, H., Cropper, M., Bald, C., Brunner, M., Canonizado, E. M., Charles, D., Chiles, T. C., Donohue, M. J., Enck, J., Fenichel, P., Fleming, L. E., Ferrier-Pages, C., Fordham, R., Gozt, A., Griffin, C., Hahn, M. E., Haryanto, B., Hixson, R., … Dunlop, S. (2023). The Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health. Annals of Global Health, 89(1), 23. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10038118/
4 United Nations Environment Programme (2023, May 3). Chemicals in plastics- A Technical Report. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/chemicals-plastics-technical-report
5 Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). 42 U.S. Code § 7429 - Solid waste combustion. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7429
6 Lohmann, R. et al. (2020, Oct. 12) Are Fluoropolymers Really of Low Concern for Human and Environmental Health and Separate from Other PFAS? Environmental Science and Technology.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.0c03244
7 Hogue, C. (2020, April 27). Incinerators may spread, not break down PFAS. Chemical & Engineering News. https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/Incincerators-spread-break-down-PFAS/98/web/2020/04
8 Schroeder, T. (2021, January). PFAS soil and groundwater contamination via industrial airborne emission and land deposition in SW Vermont and Eastern New York State, USA. Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348165872_PFAS_soil_and_groundwater_contamination_via_industrial_airborne_emission_and_land_deposition_in_SW_Vermont_and_Eastern_New_York_State_USA
9 Wang, J. (2022b, April 21). Critical Review of Thermal Decomposition of Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: Mechanisms and Implications for Thermal Treatment Processes. Environmental Science and Technology. https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10343438
10 Arkenbout, A., & Bouman, K. (2021). The true toxic toll of incinerator emissions - Biomonitoring research results. Zero Waste Europe. https://zerowasteeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/The-True-Toxic-Toll-ExecutiveSummary.pdf
11 Verma, S., et al. (2022, Dec. 2) Recent advances on PFAS degradation via thermal and nonthermal methods. Chem Eng J. Adv. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10013708/
12 EPA (2023, Nov. 22) National Overview: Facts and Figures on Materials, Wastes and Recycling.
https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figuresmaterials
13 EPA (2024, Feb. 13). Wasted Food Scale. https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/wasted-food-scale
14 Energy Justice Network (2023, April 3). http://www.energyjustice.net/files/tri.pdf