Clean Air Act Section 112
         Implementation Workshop


        Final Proceedings Document

          Durham, North Carolina
            August 29-31, 1994
      EPA Contract Number 68D30029
           Work Assignment 0-23
               Prepared for:

              Sheila Milliken
                  MD-12
 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina  27711
               Prepared by:

       TRC Environmental Corporation
                 Suite 200
           6340 Quadrangle Drive
     Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE                                                                     PAGE


Direction of Air Toxics 	1

Status of Section 112/How We Get There - Implementation Changes  	2

State's Perspective on Implementation and Identification of Key State Issues 	4


INFORMATION SESSIONS:

      MACT Partnership Program  State Perspectives 	9

      General Provisions/Promulgated General Provisions for NESHAP:
       40CFRPart 63, Subpart A 	21

      Program Implementation Efforts  	28

      MACT Standard Update/Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Industry  	36

      MACT Standard Update/Chrome Electroplaters  	37

      MACT Standard Update/Degreasers	40

      MACT Standard Update/Dry Cleaning 	42

      MACT Standard Update/Hazardous Organics NESHAP (HON)  	 44

      MACT Standard Update/Industrial Process Cooling Towers  	46

      MACT Standard Update/Petroleum Refineries	48

      Implementing a MACT Standard  	51

      Rule Start-up and Communication Issues	55

      Section  112(1) Delegation 	58

      Section 112(g) Modifications 	68

      MACTDatabase	72

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS (con't)




TITLE                                                                    PAGE






INFORMATION SESSIONS:




      Accidental Release Prevention - Section 112(r) 	74




      Urban Area Source Program	77






INTERACTIVE SESSIONS:




      MACT Partnership 	81




      Administrative Effort/Paperwork	84




      Case-by-CaseMACT	87




      Communication and Delegation	89




      Accidental Release Prevention Program 	96




      Program Integration	98






Appendix A: MACT Partnerships	A-l




Appendix B: Administrative Effort and Paperwork	B-1




Appendix C: Communication and Delegation	C-l




Appendix D: Accidental release  Prevention Program  	D-l
                                        11

-------
                                Direction of Air Toxics
                                      John Seitz
                Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

       Seitz welcomed the over 250 participants which included staff from all 10 EPA
Regions and over 50 State and local programs, noting that the representation was a tribute to
the partnerships developing among Federal, State, and local regulators.  With the air toxics
program beginning to hit full stride, there are immense challenges for the EPA,  State, and
local regulators.  To be successful, it is necessary to think strategically and creatively, as
"business as usual" will not get the job done.

       Seitz posed four questions for the participants to keep in mind during the sessions:

       1.      How can Federal air toxics provisions be effectively integrated with other
              provisions of the Clean  Air Act, as well as with  existing State air toxics
              programs?

       2.      How will section 112(g) mesh with the existing new source review program?

       3.      How will the MACT program mesh with existing SIP requirements?

       4.      How can the new Federal rules being developed  be better integrated with
              existing State and local  air toxics programs?

       Seitz challenged the group to think of better  ways to represent success of air toxics
rules and to more eloquently  make the case for air toxics control.  He posed the question of
how to ensure that States will implement the MACT program,  especially when sources are
subject to a MACT standard, but not subject to permit requirements.  Given all of the work
ahead, Seitz encouraged the EPA, States and local agencies to  improve information exchange
and communication efforts.  With regard to the regulatory agenda, Seitz encouraged the
sharing of expertise in implementation, noting  that it may be desirable to "let the MACT
hammer fall" in  cases where  there are only a few sources in the country.

       He highlighted the following efforts the EPA has underway:

       •      Innovative ways (e.g., Share-a-MACT and Adopt-a-MACT) for the EPA to
              get assistance from States in writing national standards.

       •      The OAQPS reorganization  that will better integrate the air toxics program
              with the criteria pollutant program.

       Seitz concluded by recognizing the contributions  of the  STAPPA/ALAPCO Air
Toxics Committee, State and local officials, Regional and OAQPS staffs, OSWER and
OECA for their  help in planning the conference.


                                            1

-------
                                 Status of Section 112
                    How We Get There - Implementation Changes
                                    Bruce Jordan
                        Director, Emissions Standards Division

       Jordan characterized the biggest challenge of the air toxics program as ensuring that
toxic emissions reductions are achieved.  He reviewed recent past activities, listed tasks for
the future, and suggested ways of tackling those tasks.

       One year ago, the EPA proposed  four MACT standards, completed four major
programmatic rules, and completed one mandated special study.  No standards  had been
promulgated. Jordan noted that this was not a good record.  In the past year, the EPA has
proposed 10 MACT standards and promulgated four standards that would reduce  HAPs
emissions by an estimated 785,755  Mg per year, a total reduction higher than over the past
20 years combined. In addition, in the past year, the EPA proposed one and promulgated
four programmatic rules.

       In September 1994, the EPA will propose the municipal waste combustors rule
required by  section 129 of the  Act.  This rule will  have a significant impact on the reduction
of air toxics. By November 1994,  the EPA will have promulgated five additional standards.

       Also relevant to air toxics accomplishments in the past year, Jordan cited the
hydrogen fluoride  study,  the National Academy of Sciences study, the Great Waters Study
and the interim utility study.  The Great  Waters Study is expected to set the stage for much
future  air toxics work, especially in the non-health arena.  Other studies underway include
the final utility  study and the mercury  study, which has the potential to change the way
mercury is controlled.

       Although the EPA has addressed  30  source  categories, there are approximately 174
source categories remaining.  To achieve this goal  and  to focus on implementation, it will be
necessary for the  EPA headquarters, the  Regional offices,  and State and local agencies to
continue to work  as partners, as has been the case  over the past year where State and local
agencies have helped the OAQPS.  Jordan described the very useful Brown Summit meeting
where  the EPA headquarters, the EPA Regional, State and local agency staff members held
"no holds barred"  interactive sessions which generated  many good recommendations.  He
noted that the OAQPS has acted on  36 of these recommendations.

       One  initiative aimed at  successful implementation has been the involvement of the
EPA/State/local partners  more often and in  new ways.  To this end, State and local agencies
have been involved in more than 40 workgroups, making these  partnerships more effective.
In addition,  the EPA has formed an upper management task force of headquarters, Regional,
and State and local partners to define the roles and responsibilities of such partnerships.  The
task force has worked at  identification issues and resolution of these issues, made a

-------
commitment to work together a^ <- -laenced by hrjwn Summit ana tins workshop, and
identified ways to build and maintain trust.

       Jordan listed several challenges ahead that must be overcome with less resources.
These include:

       •      development of 43 MACT standards due in November 1997, many of which
              have not been started;

       •      completion of infrastructure work by the end of 1995, including 112(g) and the
              potential to emit (PTE) issues;

       •      completion of studies and strategies including the second Great Waters report,
              the urban area source strategy, the mercury study, the utility study, the
              residual risk study; implementation and integration with other programs; and

       •      evaluation of risk reduction needed to better evaluate the program.

       Jordan stressed that the EPA and the State and local agencies are a "winning team"
 and that he welcomes the opportunity to work together.

       Jordan mentioned one specific immediate need for State and local assistance: feedback
 on the case-by-case  MACT database.  He asked that approximately 30 volunteers work with
 the EPA staff during the workshop to  address improvements in this database.

-------
                                 State's Perspective on
                 Implementation and Identification of Key State Issues
                                     Don Theiler
             Bureau Director, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

       Theiler urged that the EPA and State and local agencies continue working together,
noting that this coordination is working well.  A unique situation exists in that EPA which is
usually directing States, is catching up with air toxics programs, which are being led by State
and local agencies.  He stressed that discussions at this workshop are very significant and
that the EPA uses the suggestions developed at such forums.  He urged participants to use
this workshop to identify some new directions during this important time period.

       Theiler listed three important issues on which the workshop participants needed to
provide feedback to the EPA:

       1.      The MACT workgroup process.  The workgroup process is the basic process
              for establishing MACT standards.  How is it going?  Is the system working?
              Better communication is needed among State and local agencies, the EPA
              headquarters, and the EPA Regions.  More State and local agency involvement
              in the development of MACT standards is needed.

       2.      Operating permit programs.  The operating permit programs will be in place
              soon and there will be many  toxics questions such as on section 112(g), case-
              by-case MACT, PTE, Federal enforceability of synthetic minors, etc.  By the
              next air  toxics workshop in August 1995, States will have had considerable
              experience in this area.

       3.      MACT partnerships.  Partnership arrangements for the development of MACT
              standards,  such as the Share-a-MACT and Adopt-a-MACT efforts, need to be
              expanded.  About 15 to 20 State and local agencies are needed to devote a
              large amount of effort with the support of the EPA funding. This is an
              intensive 3 to 6 year commitment. With the support of the EPA funding,
              States could  "backfill" positions with staff members devoted to MACT
              development. Theiler noted that this program  will help State and local
              agencies in the long  run.

       Theiler discussed  several of the special studies now  underway. He cited the
importance of the urban strategy with regard to sources not covered by MACT standards.
He noted that he was not encouraged by the current status of this study.  In addition, Theiler
noted that  the recent mobile source toxics study was not well done and that the conclusions
are erroneous.  Mobile air  toxics sources cannot be ignored.  State and local agencies need to
examine and comment on this  study.

-------
       The oTvat Waters Study is another study which State and local agencies need i>> te
aware of, especially with regard to lesser quantity cutoffs.  It will be important to follow
through on this study.  Theiler noted that the mercury study and the utility study  need to be
hard hitting.

       Theiler encouraged participants to transmit ideas from the workshop to their
respective State and local air directors, and to get to know each other and to communicate
informally at the workshop.

-------
                            Questions and Answers on the
                  Direction of Air Toxics, Status of Section 112, and
                         State's Perspective on Implementation

Comment:  It is important to get involved with the problem of toxic emissions from mobile
sources.  No one is looking at dioxin emissions from diesel vehicles.  There was a
Norwegian study on such emissions in 1991. Where is the chlorine coming from? Is this a
problem in the petroleum refineries, the desalting process, or perhaps petroleum crude? The
problem has not been addressed. Since dioxins from incinerators are such a concern, we
ought to be looking at dioxins from diesel vehicles.  (Jack Lauber   New York)

Response:  The dioxin study  will probably be coming out sometime within the next few
weeks.  It focuses on some stationary sources, and notes that dioxin is present from unknown
sources.  Effort is still  needed to identify other sources of dioxin.   Municipal waste
combustion regulations will be proposed in early September, followed by the medical waste
incinerator rules. (Bruce Jordan)

       Regarding the mobile source issue,  Don Theiler asked the STAPPA/ALAPCO
subcommittee  on risk to come up with a position statement commenting  on the mobile source
study.  The need to consider dioxin emissions from diesel vehicles is one example that can
reflect dissatisfaction with the existing study.  (Don Theiler)

Question:  Please comment on  the integration of the RCRA program as it involves air toxics,
especially the  national combustion strategy. (Jack I^auber  New York)

Answer:  The OAQPS is interfacing with the RCRA staff to discuss the standards each group
is setting and to try to  mesh the two programs, although the programs seem not to agree
legislatively.  Once either program sets standards, they must be implemented.  If one
standard deals with the air toxics and one with hazardous waste combustion, and they are
both hitting the same source,  it  does not make a lot of sense.  The OAQPS and the RCRA
staff are trying to work in concert as they set the standards under  the two programs.  (Bruce
Jordan)

       Wisconsin's experience has  shown that there are problems  interfacing some of these
programs.  He cited the problem of disposal of soils contaminated by leaking underground
storage tanks.   Wisconsin wants such soils to go to a good, high-level treatment system
where the contamination would  be  burned off.  This is difficult, however, because of the
storage and handling requirements.  There seems to be a predilection for these soils to go to
landfills, which would  only lead to further volatilization of the contamination.  (Don Theiler)

Comment:  Voluntary compliance  will be an important part of making the air toxics program
work over the next couple of years. Finding ways  to express the additional protection from
the imposition of particular standards will be important so that a business sector can know
what kind of protection they are buying for their input of capital.   They will not want to see

-------
ih:.s expressed in excess cancers per thousand or in m; nber of swrJa.ds promulgated, hut
would like to see some other quantifiable measure.  (George Frantz   Massachusetts)

Response: This is indeed one of the biggest challenges we are facing.  (Bruce Jordan)

Question: Regarding the MACT partnerships, is it realistic to expect the EPA to "pick up
the tab" for a 3 to 6 year commitment?  If it is, where do we sign up?! (Paul Gerbec -
Minnesota)

Answer:  There are limited resources available for the MACT standard job.  The EPA's
budget for contractor support, used extensively for standards development in the past, has
been  reduced  significantly. The Agency is  studying the option of using some of the
remaining contractor funds to support State/local MACT partnerships.  (Bruce Jordan)

       When  the EPA uses contractor support on standards  development, contractors contact
State agencies for information. The funding of MACT partnerships may be a more effective
way to use these funds.  Many State air directors look at such partnerships as an extra
burden, but MACT standards can be developed successfully within such partnerships. There
are several details (e.g.,  confidentiality)  to  work out to make such partnerships effective.
(Don Theiler)

Question:  How do you see  the differences between STAPPA/ALAPCO and the  EPA as far
as  policies are concerned, and what is being done about it?

Answer:  There will always  be differences.  If State and local agencies identify priority
issues to  the EPA, the EPA will listen and respond.  One example was with cross pollutant
trading in the HON. Some priorities for the next year are the implementation of section
 112(g), potential to emit, and processes  for State/local involvement in the MACT standards.
(Don Theiler)

       Differences should not override  the objectives that need to be accomplished in the air
toxics program.  Talking about such differences will likely  lead to developing solutions.
With one mouth and two ears, we should be listening twice as much as we talk!  (Bruce
Jordan)

-------
INFORMATION
   SESSIONS

-------
                    MACT Partnership Program - State Perspectives
                                    Fred Dimmick
              Assistant to the Director, Environmental Standards Division
                     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Panel Members:     Audrey O'Brien, Washington Department of Ecology
                    Steve Fruh,  OAQPS
                    Lynn Hutchinson, OAQPS
                    Jon Heinrich, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
                    Don Theiler, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

       Fred Dimmick began this session by explaining that MACT partnerships are
partnerships between State and/or local air agencies and the EPA.  This program is designed
to share the leadership in developing MACT standards.  In  July 1994, the EPA
Administrator and six State program directors issued a letter supporting partnerships in
general.  Dimmick's panel focused on the large number of MACT standards to be completed
with limited resources, possible MACT partnerships  as a solution to this problem, an
overview of MACT partnerships,  reports on MACT  partnership pilot projects, and activities
for the future.

       Over the next several years, the EPA is responsible  for developing MACT standards
for 189 pollutants from  173 source categories.  This task, mandated by statute, represents
more standards than  the agency has ever developed is such a time period, including air or
water standards.  In  the past two years, the EPA's air toxics budget has been cut by 70
percent.  To address these problems,  the Agency has redefined the process and had to put
some of the seven-year standards on hold.

       Dimmick pointed out that, under the EPA's traditional standard development
approach, the EPA assigns a contractor to the standard, the contractor studies the industry,
the Agency and the contractor put together an analysis of the industry as a basis for the
standard, and then considerable rework is necessary  because external discussion occurred late
in the process.  Traditionally,  this process has taken  five workers 5 years to complete.
However, with the MACT hammer provisions in section 112(j) of the Act, Dimmick
emphasized that this traditional approach is too time  consuming to be successful.

       The solution to the problems of the large number of standards and the limited Agency
resources is to develop MACT partnerships.  Dimmick identified three important components
that make such partnerships successful.  First, up front planning and working with all
interested parties avoids rework.  Second, it is  important to leverage experience,  knowledge,
and skills — find the right collection of people — to develop the standard.  The final
component is a consensus-based approach to the selection of the MACT. Dimmick
highlighted the importance of the people involved accepting the consensus at the  end of the
MACT selection process.

-------
      The concept u: MACT partnerships began in late 1993 with the   -A and
STAPPA/ALAPCG management, in the face of the EPA's FY 1994 budget cuts.  Tne
concept developed more fully at the EPA-STAPPA/ALAPCO long range planning retreat in
February 1994. Pilot projects have been completed by the States of Washington and
Wisconsin, and different types of MACT partnerships have developed.  Of the 43 source
category standards due in November 1997, eight have only one source and eight have only
two or three sources. Dimmick pointed out that the State air agencies in States where these
sources are located know more  about them than other regulators, making these States good
EPA partners for these categories.

       Dimmick described the initial steps in the MACT partnership standard development
process.  First, the EPA and STAPPA/ALAPCO identify source categories that are good
candidates for partnerships. Next, the EPA and State/local experts meet early in the process,
and then consult with industry and environmental groups. These early steps focus on
identifying a knowledgeable team of people. In the "experts meeting," the aim is to produce
a presumptive MACT, a judgement of what the experts believe MACT to be; a list of
questions the experts need to answer; and a description of the  process for development of the
regulation.

       Three regulatory development processes have  been outlined for MACT standards.
First is the "streamlined traditional"  approach  which  is handled by the EPA. The second is
the "share-a-MACT" approach in which the EPA takes the lead and State/local agencies and
industry contribute.  This is the likely option when there are more than a few sources,  but
States have some regulations, experience,  or special knowledge.  The share-a-MACT process
was used for the primary aluminum  standard.  The third option is the "adopt-a-MACT"
process where data collection and analysis is led by a State or local agency and the regulation
is signed by the EPA Administrator.  This process is used when there are only a few sources
in the source category or when the sources are only located in a few States.

       Two pilot projects have been undertaken.  The yeast manufacturing MACT was a
partnership among Wisconsin,  Maryland, and  the EPA's Emissions Standards Division; and
the primary aluminum MACT  was a partnership among the ESD, the States of Washington
and New York, and  the EPA's Emissions Monitoring Branch.

       Dimmick posed the question, "How is  it possible to complete standards in the allotted
time?"  With 16 of the 43 source categories due in November 1997 being candidates for
MACT partnerships, States could complete these 16 with the EPA follow through to get the
regulations out.  Consensus on presumptive MACT will carry considerable weight when
there is a  small number of regulators involved  in the  process.  Dimmick noted that future
plans call  for more industry involvement.  He  added  that environmental groups support the
MACT partnership program because they are involved early in the process.

       The next steps for partnership process include review of "process maps," scheduled as
one of the workshop's interactive sessions, and building partnerships.

                                         10

-------
                                 MACT Partnership
                            "Share-A-MACT" Pilot Project
                            Primary Aluminum Production
                                Stephen Fruh, OAQPS
                 Audrey O'Brien, Washington Department of Ecology

       The primary aluminum industry in the U.S. is composed of 91 potlines at 23 plants in
14 States. Washington has seven plants and New York has two.  With seven plants,
Washington had considerable background information.

       Each primary aluminum plant has multiple potlines with different controls.  The
processes to be addressed in the MACT include paste production operations, anode baking
(prebake plants), and primary and secondary emissions from smelting.  The evaluation of
controls for each process focused the study on potlines where most emissions occur.

       Hazardous air pollutants  (HAP) of concern are hydrogen fluoride (HF) and polycyclic
organic matter (POM). Regarding HF,  most available data are for total fluoride (TF) from
an NSPS established in the early 1970s.  Little information is available on POM.  Because of
limited data for both HF and POM, the team is considering the use of surrogates for HF and
POM, specifically, TF and paniculate matter for POM.  The PM/POM relationship is
currently being tested.  All 23 plants are major  sources,  meeting either the 10 tpy individual
HAP level or the 25 tpy combined HAP level.  Any given process in a plant is also a major
source.  Fruh presented annual emissions data for each process.

       O'Brien explained that the primary aluminum MACT was  selected as a pilot share-a-
MACT project in  part because Washington volunteered.  She explained that Washington was
in the process of evaluating their primary aluminum standard and  wanted to influence the
MACT development process.  Other reasons for the selection of the primary aluminum
MACT were that it was due in November 1997, the EPA contractor funds had been cut,
Washington  had some source testing funds allocated, and other States such as New York
were interested in participating.

       The share-a-MACT partnership process is in a  continual state of change, according to
O'Brien. She  elaborated on the steps outlined by Dimmick.  First, the EPA and the lead
State/local contact identify State and local agencies interested in participating.  This is needed
early in the process. Next, the interested  parties meet to discuss presumptive MACT and
prepare a work plan to resolve technical and policy issues and identify tasks.  Then EPA and
the lead State/local agency implement the work plan, which includes conducting source
testing, preparing the background documents, and  writing the draft rule and preamble.
After the determination of the recommended MACT standard, the team obtains technical peer
review from industry, NAPCTAC, environmentalists,  OGC, OMB and other groups as
necessary.  This is followed by proposal, response to formal public comments, and
promulgation.
                                          11

-------
      The pnmary aluminum work ;u, oeen umJuuv/.y since late 1993,  -vuh frequent
interaction among the MACT partners.  The team nas identified State/local contacts,
including a contact in each State with a primary aluminum plant.  Washington,  the lead
State, has focused on the most effective ways to exchange information.  States have provided
permit information to the EPA.  The team held a conference call with the EPA and other
regulatory agencies in May, and met in late July for a day and a half to determine
presumptive MACT, discuss the remaining issues and future tasks, and to assign
responsibilities.  Both meetings required significant preparation.  O'Brien noted that the July
meeting could have been held for two days.

       At the presumptive MACT meeting, the team agreed on the definition of the source,
which includes the potline and two other sources.  The team also agreed on subcategorization
and on the approach to determination of the MACT floor, which will be based on the median
performance of the top five sources, since there are fewer than 30 sources.  The team agreed
on presumptive MACT emission limits for TF from the aluminum smelting process.

       Fruh listed the future tasks set by the team at the July meeting.  This included
additional source testing.  While some existing data were used for this project, processes in
other MACT standards may not have existing information available.  Other future tasks were
to determine the relationships between POM and TF and TF and HF as surrogates, review
the need to go beyond the MACT floor if justified, develop MACT standards based on
results of emissions testing, agree on enhanced monitoring,  and prepare the technical support
document.   Fruh pointed out that enhanced monitoring is an important part of  rule
development, adding that work is ongoing on an HF continuous emission monitor.  The team
hopes to complete these tasks by late 1994.  Tasks remaining will include continues outreach
to environmentalists, the EPA management review, proposal and promulgation.

       O'Brien listed several benefits of the  share-a-MACT process, citing  some
accomplishments of the primary aluminum team.   These included information exchange;
additional resources from the States such as contract funding (e.g., for source  testing),
experience (e.g., Washington has engineers with up to 20 years of experience  with primary
aluminum plants), and contacts with other States;  States helping each other (e.g., Washington
toured New York plants and  vice versa); resolution of data needs through source testing; and
work by the EPA and States  toward a common goal.

       O'Brien listed several suggestions to improve the share-a-MACT process.  This was
also discussed in the interactive session. The EPA needs to include State and local agencies
in developing the project work plan and to improve outreach efforts with environmentalists.
State and local agencies need to ensure resource commitments which included some level of
FTE support (three to five people are needed), funds for testing or related needs, and funds
to attend meetings often held out of State.  Face-to-face interaction is important.  The EPA
needs to increase appropriations and contract funds.  Additional planning for the presumptive
MACT meeting would have been useful in the primary aluminum project, including early
                                          12

-------
outreach.  The primary aluminum project team plans to continue the technical exchanges
among slates that they have begun, such as visiting plants in other States.
                                           13

-------
                            Questions and Answers on the
                             MACT Partnership Program

Question:  Describe how you determine presumptive MACT?  Daily basis?  Yearly basis?
Once MACT is determined, what is its impact on toxics reductions?  (Mike Scott,
Minnesota)

Answer: The primary aluminum industry had an NSPS in place based on pounds per ton of
production.  The MACT team agreed to use this.  It was acceptable to industry and several
States used this approach.  Estimates of emission reduction were not yet completed, as of the
workshop, but application of the presumptive MACT would have a "positive effect" on
emission reduction.  Steve Fruh recommended selecting a conservative, yet realistic,
presumptive MACT.  The primary aluminum team had considerable data to draw on and this
helped in the selection of the presumptive MACT.  (Steve Fruh)

       O'Brien added that the issue is arising concerning the units of pounds per ton of
production.  The team will be looking at this.  The industry's presumptive MACT  was only
slightly less stringent than the team's, and the industry's estimate of emission reduction was
about one third of the team's, but the industry did not consider the entire source category.
Fruh added that there are some processes not currently controlled by industry for which the
MACT team will be proposing controls.

Question:  There should be some connection between the emission limits that are set and the
eventual residual risk levels that will be coming out in 7 or 8 years.  The political  reality is
that  if a source has applied millions of dollars of controls  and is still not meeting the residual
risk  because it only put on the median controls when  more control was possible, there will be
a problem when the residual risk levels are determined. Is there some connection?

Answer:  The primary aluminum team is looking at going beyond the MACT floor, and this
is where they will have to look at the question of residual risk.  The team is looking at
remaining risk after controls, but is not sure what the outcome  will be.  (Audrey O'Brien)

       Steve Fruh added that residual risk is quite pollutant dependant.  HF is not  as much
of a  concern as POM, a carcinogen.

Question:  What does the EPA plan to do after a share-a-MACT is established? How will
the EPA implement it at the Federal level? Will a different Federal standard come out a few
years latter?  (Robert Todd, Texas)

Answer:  The EPA promulgates all standards as before, even if they are developed using the
share-a-MACT process.  Standards developed under the share-a-MACT process are Federal
standards.  Share-a-MACT reduces uncertainty by bringing everyone together — industry and
State and Federal  regulators.  There is a window of uncertainty while the standard  is being
developed, but during that time, States have presumptive MACT.  The presumptive MACT


                                          14

-------
WL! reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty in case-by-ca^/ vlACT devrrv.nations.  If States
are looking at developing or revising rules for MACT categories, it is useful to communicate
that to the EPA.  It may be possible that the MACT schedule could be adjusted to
accommodate that State need.  (Fred Dimmick)

      It is hard for States to move ahead of MACT development. Part of setting the
presumptive MACT based on limited information is to look at issues  that will arise as a
result of use of that information, and what will happen when additional information is
available.  For primary aluminum, the team is not suggesting that industry do anything that
will require a capital investment that they should not already be making. The numbers being
set out now are not inconsistent with what the final numbers are going to be. Moving  ahead
rather than waiting was what led Washington to be on the MACT team for the primary
aluminum MACT.  (Audrey O'Brien)
                                         15

-------
                    Adopt-a MACT Process - Yeast Manufacturing
              Jon Heinrich, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
                              Lynn Hutchinson, OAQPS

       Lynn Hutchinson noted that the EPA had done  some work on the Baker's yeast
manufacturing control technologies in the early 1990s.   She acknowledged that Wisconsin
and Maryland volunteered to work on this MACT standard.

       Jon Heinrich characterized the Baker's yeast manufacturing adopt-a-MACT effort as a
"success story."  The team has developed a presumptive MACT document.  The MACT
team is composed of staff members from Maryland and Wisconsin, and from the OAQPS.
Assistance has been provided by other State and local agencies as  well. Henrich described
the steps of the adopt-a-MACT process.

       Presumptive MACT allows State and local agencies to move forward when they  face
a section  112(g) determination and will also be useful should the MACT hammer ever fall.
The upfront involvement of State and local agencies in this process is very important.

       Wisconsin was a good candidate for the MACT development because the State had
been involved in developing non-CTG RACT.  Yeast manufacturing was a good candidate
for adopt-a-MACT because the EPA  had a CTG available for the  industry and a draft AP-42
section, and because there were only a few sources in a few States.

       The first step was planning and directing.  The EPA committed $10,000 to the project
for travel  and administrative help, and Wisconsin committed resources to about the same
level.  This commitment of resources was very important.  Weekly conference calls were
held for the project team which proved critical to keeping the project focused and on
schedule.  A  workplan and  schedule  were developed.   The EPA and Wisconsin prepared a
draft agreement to carry out the project.  This will be  turned into a memorandum of
understanding.

       The Wisconsin staff has put in about 475 hours to date  and Heinrich estimated that
the work is about two thirds completed. This includes  developing  drafts for the experts
meeting,  sharing information, developing the draft agreement,  and considering what
presumptive MACT should  be.  This estimate does not include time that the EPA and
Maryland  have put in.

       There  was important administrative paperwork associated with this adopt-a-MACT
program.  This included development of a contract and cost estimate.  There were significant
difficulties in meeting the EPA and State confidential business  information (CBI)
requirements.  Wisconsin staff had to review the EPA  security manual, prepare a security
plan, assure consistency with State laws, meet storage  requirements, and train and certify
staff.   This CBI problem will be a topic in the interactive session.
                                          16

-------
       Another import:c step wao consultation with afu:ic:. agencies. The experts meeting
was critical to development of presumptive MACT.  Considerable preparation went into this
meeting, getting information  assembled and developing a presentation. Heinrich added that
information prior to the experts meeting would have been useful.  Heinrich encouraged
participants in similar efforts to be flexible and to be prepared to defend information they
provide to the effort. The idea of the experts meeting is to get information out ~ it must be
an open and interactive forum.

       Documentation of the yeast manufacturing adopt-a-MACT process included the
development of issue papers  (e.g., on emissions averaging and area sources). This proved to
be very effective.  The information collected must be treated according to CBI requirements
(if necessary) and this includes meeting confidential file requirements of the EPA and the
States.  Public files are also required for nonconfidential information.  Documentation of this
project also includes a summary of the experts meeting, and the preamble to the proposed
rule.  After proposal, the team will prepare responses to the comments.

       Heinrich listed several items that worked well for the yeast  manufacturing project.
First, this project was chosen as a good candidate for the adopt-a-MACT process because of
the limited number of facilities and only one pollutant.  Certain other source categories
would not be good choices.

       The relationships between States and the EPA worked very  well.  There were also
good  relationships  among State and local agency technical staff members.  Finally, the
process was quick  and efficient.

       Heinrich listed three items of this process that needed improvement.  First was the
mechanism for sharing CBI.  Second was the experts meeting and consultation with affected
agencies.  Third was the review of public health impact when establishing a standard based
on productive capacity.

       The project team developed a better appreciation for  the difficulties faced by State and
local agencies and  by the EPA.  In addition, the standard will be more practical, and one that
States can enforce.
                                          17

-------
                            Questions and Answers on the
                    Adopt-a-MACT Process - Yeast Manufacturing

Question:  What is the HAP associated with Baker's yeast manufacturing and what is the
basis for the standard?

Answer: The HAP is acetaldehyde and the standard was based on pounds per ton of yeast
produced, specifically 0.7 pounds per ton of yeast produced.  (Jon Heinrich)

Question:  How does this compare with the  wood furniture negotiated rulemaking (reg neg)?

Answer: The wood furniture reg neg has gone on for 2 years.  The wood furniture project
was charged with producing a draft CTG and a MACT standard.  Development of the CTG
was successful, but development of the MACT did not go as well. Some of the reasons were
that this was the first surface coating category to undergo  MACT  standard development and
various difficult issues had to be addressed that went beyond wood furniture.  One was the
freedom to use a variety of HAP without any bounds on what went into the coating
formulation.  Another was how to address such variation in the standard.   (Jon Heinrich)

Question:  Would technology transfer be useful in development of presumptive MACT?
Does the primary aluminum source category include industrial ventilation standards for
control of fugitive emissions? That is to say, will effective local exhaust  standards be
required  in the MACT standard to control fugitive emissions?  Certain ventilation
requirements are more effective at controlling fugitives. Some agencies are building local
exhaust ventilation  systems into dry cleaning regulations.

Answer:  The primary aluminum standard addresses both  primary and secondary emissions.
The team is looking at the control  of secondary emissions or fugitives via various work
practices. There are add-on controls for fugitive emissions at some of the facilities.  The
primary aluminum  team is looking at  improved capture and hooding and increased air flow to
reduce fugitive emissions.  The team is not separating the limits for primary and fugitive
emissions.  (Steve Fruh)

Question:  Both Wisconsin and Maryland have State regulations that require technology and
compliance with ambient limits.  Were State rules considered in setting the yeast
manufacturing presumptive MACT? Did it affect the determination on  presumptive MACT?
Answer:  The non-CTG RACT was the overriding documentation.  The facilities now
comply with State HAP rules.  (Jon Heinrich)

Comment:  Involvement of State and local agencies was well handled in the yeast
manufacturing adopt-a-MACT.  The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency was glad to
be included in the process and  felt it was effective.  (Maggie Corbin - Puget Sound)


                                          18

-------
Response:  The real concern was that the team did not prepare people adeq'i<> ely for th;-
experts meeting.

Question:  Regarding the source category list, are SIC codes listed?  If this is the basis for
identification of sources, it may not be accurate.  (Bob Mahoney - South Carolina)

Answer: The EPA will be checking  the source categories on the 7-year and 10-year lists.
States should contact Fred Dimmick or Mary Sullivan Douglas of STAPPA/ALAPCO if they
are interested in the MACT development programs, especially for 7-year standards.  (Fred
Dimmick)

Question:  Would you consider this type of program for the urban area source standards?
How can States involved with adopt-a-MACT deal with ex pane comments?  (Bob Fletcher -
California)

Answer: Regarding urban air toxics, the EPA has been looking at applications of this
process.  One is using a similar approach of pulling partners together to look at the urban air
toxics problem and defining what needs to be regulated.  Any MACT standards developed
under the urban air toxics program are clearly candidates for partnerships.   (Fred Dimmick)

       Regarding State response to comments after proposal,  the EPA staff could summarize
comments and give those pertaining to the work the State did to the State to prepare
responses.  The EPA will take that response and put together the  final rulemaking package.
The team may reassemble to discuss  what to  do in the final standard, but there are still legal
issues to work out prior to this practice.  (Fred Dimmick)

Question:  Will there be additional emission reductions from the  primary aluminum MACT
standards?  Would the EPA ever decide not to develop a MACT standard because an
industry is already controlled by another rule?  (Bruce Varner  Region V)

Answer:  It is possible that the EPA  would decide not to develop a rule. (Fred Dimmick)

       The team for the primary aluminum industry looked at this.  Industry was not
receptive to adopting the NSPS as  the MACT,  but only five lines currently comply with the
NSPS.  The NSPS did not address all of the processes and pollutants under consideration for
the MACT, and the MACT will achieve more reductions than the NSPS.  One of the first
steps in development of a MACT standard should be to look at existing standards.  (Steve
Fruh)

       Regarding the asbestos processing source category, the EPA has found that there are
no major sources.  The existing NESHAP provides a reasonable amount of protection.
There are no other HAPs involved.  Thus, the EPA will remove the asbestos processing
source category and add another processing category associated with brake linings with no
                                           19

-------
asbestos.  It is possible that,  in the experts meeting, the group could decide that a standard is
pointless.  (Fred Dimmick)

Question:  What has been the reaction from State air directors on State participation in the
MACT process?  (Tad Aburn - Maryland)

Answer:  There is not a lot of support among air directors for assisting in  MACT
development.  It would be useful at the workshop to get an idea of the level of interest in
State participation.  Theiler wanted feedback on whether States thought they should be
involved.  Theiler noted that 39 States and 33 local agencies were present at the conference,
making this the best attended meeting in his 15 years in the air program.  (Don Theiler -
Wisconsin)

       Theiler reiterated that the adopt-a-MACT process is for source categories with single
or very limited numbers of sources.  Larger numbers of sources warrant the share-a-MACT
process where the State does not have to take  the lead entirely.  It is important to establish
the presumptive MACT as quickly as possible, due, in part, to the section  112(g)
requirements.

       Theiler listed several  issues important to the MACT partnership processes:
confidentiality, response to comments, and resources.  Wisconsin will spend about 700 hours
on the yeast manufacturing standard.  Washington spent  slightly less on the share-a-MACT
effort.

       Theiler noted that air directors should be encouraged to have their State participate in
these processes to help influence standards and to help with some of the unanswered
questions such as compliance demonstration requirements.  States need to help develop
standards that will work in their State.  States are able to build up their expertise.
                                           20

-------
                              GENERAL PROVISIONS

                    Promulgated General Provisions for NESHAP:
                             40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A
                                    Shirley Tabler
                     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Moderators:        Linda Herring, OAQPS
                    Sims Roy, OAQPS

Speakers:     Tom Driscoll, EPA Region VI
             Jerry Avery, Michigan Department of Natural Resources
             Pat Kirsop, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
       Tabler presented a summary of the purpose and content of the General Provisions
promulgated on March 16, 1994 (59 FR 12408).  The general provisions eliminate
redundancy in general information that would be included in section 112 standards.  This
includes, for example, requirements on  construction and reconstruction, performance tests,
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting.  Part 63 codifies a consistent set of procedures,
criteria, and definitions that would be used to implement section  112 NESHAPs and
programs, including technical administrative and legal/enforcement aspects, as well as
statutory requirements and policy decisions. Part 63 also helps to maintain consistency with
the EPA's past technical and policy decisions in NSPS  and NESHAP programs, where
appropriate.

       The General Provisions consist of 15 sections; Tabler summarized the content of the
major sections:

•      Section 63.1   Applicability

       The General Provisions apply to all stationary sources that will be regulated under
section  112, but individual standards can override the General Provisions where appropriate.
The HON and some other standards have overridden the General Provisions with  regard to
applicability.  Each NESHAP must include a table that specifies applicable requirements
from the General Provisions  and cites any overriding provisions in  that NESHAP.

       Part 63 requirements  do not supersede other more stringent  standards, either Federal
or State. As promulgated, sources that are not subject to a relevant standard or part 63 were
required to keep a  record of  the applicability determination.  However,  this requirement will
be deleted in the upcoming revisions and will be repeated in individual standards.

       With regard to area sources, each part 63 rule must specify  in the rule whether
affected area sources are immediately subject to the permitting requirements, or whether

                                          21

-------
States ;'L. ,  exclude a;i,.-..ked area sources,  .:; nay defer permitting of aiea sources.  If a
standard  does not speciiy affected area sources' responsibilities, then these sources are
subject to permitting without deferral.  Area sources that increase their emissions to become
major sources and are therefore subject to a relevant standard must notify that they are
subject to the standard.

•      Section 63.4 - Prohibited Activities and Circumvention

       Sources must comply with part 63  unless a compliance extension or an exemption
from compliance has been approved.  Sources must comply with  part 63 regardless of
whether  those requirements have been included in a title V permit or not.

•      Section 63.5 - Construction and Reconstruction

       After the effective date of a promulgated standard, the construction and reconstruction
provisions apply to owners or operators who construct a new source or reconstruct a source
after the proposal date of the standard.  Owners and operators should be aware that
constructed or reconstructed-affected source are subject  to standards for new sources.  After
an emission standard is promulgated, Administrator approval must be received in advance to
construct a new major affected source, reconstruct a major affected source, or reconstruct a
major source such that it becomes a major affected source that is  subject to the standard.

       Owners and operators subject to the requirement for preconstruction review (after the
promulgation date of the standard) must submit their applications for approval and list
required contents of  the applications.  Amendments will exempt all new or reconstructed
sources that commence construction before the standard's effective date from preconstruction
review.

       After an emission standard is promulgated, all physical and operational changes to a
subject source within the scope of the definition of "affected sources" under the relevant
standard must comply with  the standard.  This covers physical and operational changes that
may not be covered by the provisions implementing  section 112(g) (e.g.,  at area sources)
which applies to major sources.

       This section maintains the owner's or operator's compliance responsibilities,
regardless  of the Administrator's approval of the application to construct or reconstruct.  A
source may not be subject  to preconstruction review, but will still be  subject to a MACT
standard.  It establishes procedures and criteria for the Administrator  to approve construction
or reconstruction applications that have already gone through a State preconstruction process.
The EPA will be examining this provision in the upcoming review of part 63.

•     Section 63.6   Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements
                                           22

-------
       This section establishes that operation and maintenance requirements under secrion
63.6 apply to all sources affected by "relevant standards," including promulgated emission
standards and case-by-case MACT determinations (except where a source has a compliance
extension or an exemption from  compliance.)  Area sources that increase their emissions
such that they become major sources and are subject to the relevant standard(s) are subject to
these provisions, and this section gives compliance dates  for such sources.  This section also
gives compliance dates for new and reconstructed sources that start up either before or after
the promulgation date of a relevant standard, and gives special compliance dates for sources
affected by  sections 112(i)(2) and (i)(7).

•      Section 63.9  Notification Requirements

       Requirements in this section apply to owners or operators of affected sources (both
major and area sources) that are subject to the provisions of part 63, unless specified
otherwise in a relevant standard, or unless the source is operating under a compliance
extension or an exemption from  compliance.  After a State has been delegated authority to
implement these provisions, the  EPA Regional Offices  may waive the duplicate submittal of
notifications.

       Seven types of notifications are required under the General Provisions:  (1) initial
notification that the source is subject to the standard (many standards are overriding the 120-
day time limit and  giving sources more that  120 days for this notification);  (2) intention to
construct or reconstruct a new source;  (3) for major sources, date of commencement of
construction/reconstruction, anticipated date  of startup and date of actual startup; (4) intent to
conduct performance test; (5) intent to conduct a performance test; (6) intent to conduct
opacity and visible emission observations; and use a CMS;  and (7) compliance status.

•      Section 63.10 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

       The General Provisions require a  5-year data retention period for records. Files can
be maintained on microfilm, microfiche, computer, floppy disk, or magnetic tape disk.
Sources are allowed to reduce the reporting burden in a variety of ways, if a reduction is
appropriate and  the enforcement agency approves it.

       There are six types of reports required: (1) results of performance tests, opacity tests,
and performance evaluations; (2) periodic startup,  shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) reports;
(3) immediate SSM reports if such actions deviate from the SSM plan; (4) excess emissions
and CMS performance report and/or summary report for sources using CMS; (5) progress
reports may be required for any  source granted a compliance extension;  and (6)  notification
of compliance status (i.e., a compliance status) report.

       Tabler noted that six groups have filed petitions against the EPA's General
Provisions.  These groups are Chemical Manufacturers Association, American Mining
Congress, American Petroleum Institute, General Electric, Coalition for Clean Air


                                           23

-------
Implen-entajon, and American Forest and Paper Association.  ,ne conte4 ; o=. these petitions
overlapped to some extent.  The points that the petitioners asked the EPA to review were:

•      definitions of major source, affected and new source, existing source, area source,
       and construction and reconstruction

•      potential to emit, specifically whether only federally enforceable control requirements
       or limits should be considered in assessing major source status.  Tabler noted that this
       issue has now been separated from the General Provisions.

•      preconstruction review requirements

•      application of standards during SSM. Petitioners were under the impression  that
       sources had to meet the standard during SSM. While the General Provisions do not
       require this,  individual NESHAPs could override the General Provisions.

•      extension of compliance with emission standards.  The CMA wanted to be able to
       apply for a compliance extension up until the effective date.  Currently the General
       Provisions require a 12-month advance notice for this.  The EPA is looking at this
       suggestion as a possible change.
                                           24

-------
                       Implementation of the General Provisions
                                Tom Driscoll, Region VI

       The General Provisions lay the ground work for MACT standards and should be one
of the first rules delegated to the States. Driscoll recommended that States begin reg
development now.  Although the provisions may change, States with operating permit
program approvals coming up may have to write these requirements in a part 70 permit fairly
soon.  Additionally, the General Provisions have to be implemented and enforced whether or
not they are in a part 70 permit.

       Driscoll also recommended that States consider taking delegation prior to part 70
approval, if possible.  Region IV has tested an MOA mechanism  that can work well for this.
One State has asked for partial delegation such that, as MACT standards come out, they
would  be delegated the General Provisions just for  that MACT.  Driscoll pointed out that
piecemeal delegation is not desirable.

       Some requirements cannot be delegated: alternative monitoring methods, alternative
test methods, and equivalency determinations under section 112(h).

                Jerry Avery, Michigan Department of Natural Resources

       The General Provisions for MACT standards are very important, more so than the
general provisions for NSPS or the former general  provisions  for NESHAP.

       Avery listed several features of the General  Provisions  that he felt were noteworthy,
especially for other States:

       •     Preconstruction approval is required  for new sources. Most  States already
             have new source review and toxics programs, making this redundant.  The
             redundancy was an issue of the law suit on the General Provisions.

       •     EPA addressed start up/shut down/malfunction provisions per State comments
             to minimize emissions during these periods.

       •     The General Provisions are detailed, prescriptive, and stringent.  Case-by-case
             decisions will not be required  often.  This could increase title V resource
             needs.  Michigan expects considerable numbers of violations.

       Michigan would like to see full and automatic delegation, and feels  that the title V
delegation should be sufficient to accept all section 112 responsibilities.
                                           25

-------
                Pat Kirsop, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

       Wisconsin, like several other States cannot simply adopt a Federal standard as
written, but must promulgate their own rules.  The promulgation process takes approximately
18 months.  Given this situation,  Kirsop preferred not to promulgate rules  until the General
Provisions are revised.  Kirsop agree that it would be useful for delegation of the General
Provisions to be part of the title V delegation. In Wisconsin, establishing section 112(g)
procedures is a more important issue at this time, and the General Provisions may have to
wait.
                                           26

-------
                             Questions and Answers on the
                                  General Provisions

Question:  Do States need to go through rulemaking to adopt the General Provisions before
General Provision requirements in a title V permit?

Answer: Pat Kirsop noted that, to be State-enforceable, Wisconsin would have to
promulgate rules. However, requirements can be put in a title V permit and be federally
enforceable only.

Question:  Does the Wisconsin procedure require voluntary cooperation from the source
because it is not a State requirement?

Answer:  Yes, Wisconsin will work with industry to reach agreement on this.

Question:  What are you going to do in the interim between title V delegation and section
H2(g)?

Answer:  Wisconsin feels that there will not be  much time between these, as they are
working on  112(g) at the present time and hope  to have title V delegation in January 1995.

Question:  Per Tom Driscoll's remarks, does he intend for  States to go through a 112(1)
process to take delegation of the General Provisions?

Answer:  States would not use a 112(1) process  unless they  are making significant changes in
the General  Provisions.  (Tom Driscoll)  the EPA does not expect that the litigation on the
General Provisions will lead to significant changes. Preconstruction review will probably be
the most significant area for change.  (Shirley Tabler)

Question:  Does EPA want States that must  promulgate rules rather than adopting Federal
rules to go through rulemaking now even though there will be changes later on?

Answer:  deferred

Question:  Are periodic shut down, start up, and malfunction  plans required to be submitted
or kept on site?

Answer:  Under the General Provisions,  they must be kept  on site and do not have  to be
submitted.  (Shirley Tabler)

Question:  The dry cleaning NESHAP was promulgated before the General Provisions. Will
EPA issue a table of requirements applicable to  these facilities as they did for the HON?

Answer:  deferred

                                          27

-------
                            Program Implementation Efforts

Speakers: Michele Dubow, OAQPS
          Barbara Lee, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
          Ray Vogel, OAQPS

       The EPA program integration activities are receiving increasing attention from the
EPA management, as evidenced by Administrator Browner's Common Sense initiative
regarding integrated rule development across media for selected industries.  From an air
perspective, the Clean Air Act places multiple demands on sources, requiring program
integration.  Each  different program (e.g., title V, air toxics, acid rain, etc.) imposes
administrative as well as control requirements. The EPA's air office has the responsibility to
see that these combined requirements make sense for the regulated sources, and that health
and environmental goals be accomplished efficiently.  The importance of this integration
effort has been recognized by the  Clean Air Act Advisory Committee in formation of a
subcommittee on program integration.  This subcommittee includes State and local agency
members.  The committee has met twice to date and has discussed the  title  V/title III
interface, enhanced monitoring, and potential  to emit. Future meetings will address potential
conflicts among the Act programs.

       The program integration effort at the OAQPS was begun in February 1994 at the long
range planning meeting with  the EPA headquarters,  the EPA Regional, and State and  local
agencies present.   The group noted that there  may be potential for conflicting requirements
for the same emission point.  Conflicting requirements means potential for  duplication,
overlap,  inconsistencies or unintended consequences.   Inconsistent use of terms across
programs and inconsistent review  and approval processes were also discussed.  To focus
more on program integration, a program integration task force led by Lydia Wegman
(OAQPS) and Rob Brenner (OPAR) was formed to identify issues needing  further
coordination or clarification,  assign  "champions" for resolving issues, and raise priority
issues for attention and action.

       The program integration task force met in March and June 1994.  They have
identified an initial set of issues which focus mainly on the interaction  of titles I, III, and V
of the Clean Air Act amendments.  Contractor efforts are underway to examine  several air
programs to identify the potential  for conflicts in administrative or control requirements, to
develop a glossary of terms that will serve as  a resource and help to identify conflicting
terms, to prepare HAP potential to emit technical guidance, and to prepare a question/answer
log for the TTN BBS to  cover program integration  questions.  The task force plans to expand
their focus to include the acid rain program and the enhanced monitoring program.

       Dubow presented a summary of the status of the potential to emit project, based on
the Federal perspective, acknowledging that State and local agencies may have a different
perspective.  She focused on mechanism issues only.  Program integration  was also
addressed in one of the interactive sessions.  Dubow  explained that the EPA sent a proposed


                                           28

-------
rule to clai.  vvnen ana :.o\v to limit potentia. to unit for hazardous air ponutants to OMB in
February 1994.  The rule was based on comments received on the General Provisions, which
was on a court-ordered deadline.  The potential to emit rule was withdrawn in June 1994
based on program integration and burden concerns.  State and local agencies contended that
it was inconsistent and burdensome.  The EPA is rethinking the approaches and strategy,
taking an integrated program approach.  This is not simply a  toxics effort.

       Potential to emit is an important issue because the applicability of many Act
requirements depends on whether a source is classified as a major source.  "Major source"  is
defined in terms of  "potential to emit."  Many small sources will now be subject to
requirements based  on their potential to emit, when their actual emissions are very low.  The
definition of major  source in the proposed part 70 revisions is being made consistent with the
definition of "major source" in the General Provisions for air toxics sources. The definition
in both cases will reflect a contiguous area under common control with thresholds of 10 or
25 tons per year potential to emit of HAP or applicable lesser quantities. For title V
purposes, the site would not be broken down into SIC codes for section 112 major sources.

       For the toxics  programs,  consistent with other programs, the General Provisions
define potential to emit based on the source's maximum physical or operational capacity
considering limits that are federally enforceable. Federal enforceability is meant to ensure
that limits are actually included in the source's design and the sources adhere to these limits,
and that the EPA and citizens can enforce violations of these  consistent with the Act.

       Toxics sources that would be major except for federally enforceable potential to emit
limits are called "synthetic area sources" which is the toxics program's equivalent to the
criteria pollutant "synthetic minor" sources.  Such sources can avoid applicable requirements
under the Act by taking federally enforceable limits on their potential to emit.

       The EPA's current policy and regulations define the minimum elements needed to
create federally enforceable potential to emit limits.  One of these is practical enforceability.
A yearly emission rate is not considered practically enforceable. There must be an
opportunity for public and the EPA review when source-specific limits are developed.  The
limits must be developed through an approved mechanism. That is to say,  there must be an
appropriate foundation of Federal authority to create these programs, authority for the EPA
to approve State programs, and State authority to implement these programs.  The General
Provisions  at 40 CFR 63.2 include a list of  federally enforceable mechanisms  to limit the
potential to emit.

       The mechanisms in the General Provisions include Federal and certain  EPA-approved
State permit programs such as title V,  minor source new source review, and federally
enforceable State operating permit programs (FESOP); stand-alone Federal requirements such
as NSPS, NESHAPs, and SIPs/FIPs; State equivalent rules approved under section  112(1);
and the EPA-approved State rules designed to limit potential  to emit ("prohibitory rules").
SIP-approved mechanisms that have been used to limit potential to emit historically for


                                           29

-------
criteria pollutants include minor new source review programs, FESOPs, and prohibitory
rules.  Minor new source review programs are applicable in most States, but can only be
used upon initial construction or upon modification.  Disadvantages of minor new source
review permits are that they may not be practically enforceable or they may not have been
publicly reviewed prior to issuance.  FESOPs, while federally enforceable, are not widely
available at this time. Prohibitory rules have the potential for controlling large numbers of
similar sources. Efforts are underway in a number of State and local agencies to develop
such rules, but none have yet received the EPA approval into a SIP.

       All of the mechanisms for limiting potential to  emit may have limitations with respect
to their ability to regulate noncriteria hazardous air pollutants directly. The EPA's current
thinking is that mechanisms approved into SIPs under  section 110 authority can cover criteria
and hazardous air pollutants in so far as the HAPs are criteria pollutants and where those
HAPs are limited.  Noncriteria HAPs could possibly be limited by hours of operation, but
this issue is still under review.  The EPA's current thinking is that for States to set federally
enforceable HAP-specific limits on potential to emit for noncriteria  HAPs would require
additional approval under section  112(1).

       Dubow summed up this discussion as influencing whether the mechanisms are
appropriate and adequate for all sources that want to limit their potential  to emit in time to
avoid otherwise applicable  requirements such as title V permits, MACT applicability and
112(g). Industry groups are concerned about timing of mechanisms' availability, availability
by States, and uncertainty in planning for compliance. State and local agencies are concerned
about the administrative burden of issuing potential to  emit limits to large numbers of
sources.  The EPA is concerned about additional legal framework needed to expand the
scope of existing programs under 112(1) and the effectiveness of existing programs for such
limits.

       The EPA is taking several steps to address these concerns.  Mechanisms that will be
available soon include amendments to section 112(1) rules (40 CFR  part 63, subpart E) to
approve State programs and rules to limit potential to emit of noncriteria HAPs, and source
category-specific PTE limits in MACT standards. Additional mechanisms under
consideration include a part 63 administrative review process, a general Federal "prohibitory
rule," and specific Federal "prohibitory rules."

       The EPA has identified some fundamental questions that need to be answered with
regard to development of a PTE strategy. Is there a need for additional mechanisms to limit
PTE?  Who is responsibile for development and implementation of  additional mechanisms?
How can existing mechanisms be revised or amended to make them more timely, shortening
the approval process? How can the administrative/compliance burden be streamlined without
sacrificing appropriate accountability and enforceability?  What if a mechanism is not
available on time?  The EPA is looking for input on these questions.
                                           30

-------
       Some o/ the factors to consider in working toward a comprehensive PTE strai.".1,' are
State versus the EPA roles and responsibilities, variability of views and approaches, and the
legal risk of various approaches.

       Dubow summarized the presentation by listing three "take home messages":  (1)
some sources lack timely and applicable mechanisms for creating federally enforceable PTE
limits, (2)  the best combined approach is FESOP and "prohibitory rules," which should be
submitted as soon as possible, and (3) State/local and the EPA cooperation is very  important.
                                           31

-------
                       Potential to Emit - State/Local Perspective
                                      Barbara Lee
                       Bay Area Air Quality Management District

       Limiting PTE is important to State and local agencies because of the practical
implementation issues.   There are four key components to this:  the number of sources, the
level of source education, the  small business status, and the resources from permit fees.
With regard to the number of sources, Lee noted that the Bay Area AQMD has only 30
sources that are major  sources based on  actual emissions, but thousands that could be major
based on their potential emissions.   Lee  also noted that small  sources are often not familiar
with Federal regulations and will require a large effort  in source education. Permit  fees
often are not sufficient to meet all the needs that go into addressing many small sources, such
as source education and compliance and  enforcement requirements.  Larger sources then
subsidize smaller sources, which is only effective  until  there are too many  smaller sources
included.

       Factors that influence the perspective of the regulatory agency are the size of the
agency and the attainment status of the area.  For small programs that are in ozone
attainment areas,  most of the sources permitted  are very large, and small sources are not "in
the system"  and the agencies are not aware of what resources would be necessary to address
all of the small sources.

       Some upcoming programs are going to influence the way State and  local agencies
view limiting PTE. The urban area source program will provide more data on area  sources
and their potential to emit.  If potential  to emit  is higher  than currently realized and  there is a
lack of federally enforceable mechanisms, the EPA and States will face a difficult problem.
Also, the requirements to implement permit  streamling  provisions run counter to the effort of
bringing detailed  federally enforceable conditions down on small sources.

       Potential to emit is a complicated issue and Lee encouraged that it be broken down
into smaller components.  Some of the components of implementation of a potential  to emit
program are the actual emissions of the  facility, the complexity of the facility,  and the
control level.  A  facility with  high actual emissions close to the threshold would be treated
differently from one that is far below the threshold.  Source type is also important
considering complex sources with multiple emissions points versus simple sources.   Large,
complicated extensively controlled  sources with actual emissions close to the threshold might
be better handled under a synthetic  minor permit, while the numerous very small sources
with actual emissions well below the threshold should be handled  in some other way such as
a prohibitory rule.

       Lee recommended finding a programmatic approach to limiting potential to emit.  She
also recommended that each MACT standard provide clarification on how  to consider
whether a source is subject to the standard, possibly not using potential to  emit, but instead
applying a usage  rate or an equipment configuration. Finally, Lee recommended that these


                                           32

-------
       be integrated with other programs such as ti»; > rdan area lAnsrje program and in
permit streamling programs.
                                            33

-------
                      Interface of Title V Operating Permits with
                            Section 112 Air Toxics Program
                                       Ray Vogei
                     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

       Vogel's presentation was a preview of one of the interactive sessions. Vogel led off
by discussing the problem of incorporating MACT standards in title V  permits.  For many
MACT standards, key compliance requirements are not known  at the time of promulgation,
and perhaps not known until the source performs a compliance  test.  The process for
determining compliance requirements could take 3.5 years.  This is a problem because, under
title V, MACT standards must be in the permit within 18  months if more than 3 years are
left on the permit.

       The EPA addressed this problem in the part 70 revisions by creating a two-step
process for incorporating MACT standards.  The first step is where a permit is
administratively amended within 18 months of promulgation to  include initial requirements.
The second  step  is a second permit revision at  the compliance statement deadline (i.e., at the
notice of compliance status), 6 months after the compliance deadline.  This process meets the
requirements of title V by getting the MACT in the permit in 18 months, and also getting the
compliance requirements  on  the permit when they are developed.   Some environmental
groups do not think they  have enough time at the second revision to assess  if the MACT
standard is properly incorporated into  the permit.  This topic was discussed in the interactive
session.

       Vogel also discussed  the exemption of area sources.  Title V requires that all major
sources subject and all sources subject to a section 111 or 112 standard must secure a permit.
In the part 70 rule,  the EPA has deferred the need to secure a permit for sources subject  to
current standards (i.e., promulgated before the part 70 rule in July 1992) for 5 years. For
section 111  or 112 standards promulgated after July  1992,  the EPA will address  area sources
in each standard.  Area sources subject to new MACT standards are subject to title V unless
the EPA exempts them in the MACT rule.  Many area sources could be subject  to title V
only because of the MACT unless exempted, and so far, none have been exempted.  The dry
cleaning standard deferred area sources from the need to secure a permit.  There may be an
option in the near future  to accelerate the schedule for doing the rulemaking for  deferring
standards promulgated before July 1992.  The  interactive session will discuss criteria for
exemptions and deferrals. The EPA needs to consider what benefits are gained by permitting
small sources.
                                           34

-------
                              Questions and Answers on
                              Program Integration Effects

Question:  What is EPA's current position on permits for sources that come under title V
because of their potential to emit, but want to get out of the program?  States could be faced
with thousands of applications from sources wanting  to get out of the program.  Given the
shortage of resources, States need some flexibility in the early  years of the title V program.
(Sara Laumann, Colorado)

Answer:  Such sources should get out before they are required to submit a permit application
(1 year after approval of the State program).   State deadlines vary.   A prohibitory rule might
be a way to address this issue quickly.  (Ray  Vogel)

Comment: Another possible answer to this situation is that sources would submit a title  V
application, the source could either be issued  a title V permit or a minor source permit,
depending upon negotiations and the types of restrictions they want to take.  (Joy Stanton,
EPA Region VI)

Response: Yes.  This would work provided  the source applied by  the required date.

Question:  Assuming a  State has submitted a FESOP program for criteria pollutants and  has
requested  112(1) approval, can we approve SIP programs for noncriteria HAPs?  Prohibitory
rules are not an option due to the long rulemaking time period. (Scott Miller, EPA Region
IV)
                                          35

-------
                           MACT STANDARDS UPDATE

                   Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Industry
                                  Mary Tom Kissell
                    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

       The EPA has three ongoing projects relating to the aerospace industry:  the NESHAP,
a CTG, and a depainting study.  The subject facilities in the aerospace manufacturing and
rework MACT are major sources that manufacture or rework  commercial or military
aerospace vehicles or components.

       The emission sources controlled are cleaning operations, primer operations, topcoat
operations, chemical milling maskant operations, storage and  handling of wastes, and
depainting (i.e.,  stripping) operations.  Emission control provisions include emission
limitations, housekeeping measures, compliant solvents and coatings (the major focus),
equipment standards, and add-on control technology.

       The NESHAP was proposed on June 6, 1994.  The preamble appeared in the Federal
Register and the rule was put on the TTN.  A public hearing  was held on August 15, 1994,
and the public comment period was scheduled to end on September 15, 1994.  An
amendment notice was scheduled to be published in August or September 1994. Also
proposed with the rule was Method 309 for determining a rolling balance time period for a
carbon absorber.  Comments show that other industries are interested in this  method.

       The aerospace CTG  will include the requirements of the proposed NESHAP for
primers, topcoats, and cleanup solvents, as well as requirements for specialty coatings,
adhesives, and sealants.  The EPA currently has a section 114 letter out regarding  specialty
coatings.  The CTG is scheduled to be completed by summer 1995, coinciding  with
promulgation of the NESHAP.

       The depainting study is a joint project between the EPA, the Air  Force, and NASA.
The goals of the study are to identify and evaluate non-methylene chloride depainting
systems. It is scheduled to  be completed by June 1995.
                                          36

-------
                           MACT STANDARDS UPDATE

                                Chrome Electroplaters
                                    Lalit Banker
                     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

      The court ordered deadline for the NESHAP on chromium emissions from hard
chrome, decorative chrome, and chromium anodizing is November 23, 1994.  The standard
covers both major and area sources.  The three processes covered by the standard are
represented by about 5,000 sources, nationwide.  Most of these sources are area sources, but
some facilities are located at a major source site,  making them major sources.  Most of the
sources are "job shops," doing electroplating for bigger companies. The EPA plans to cover
the area sources under MACT rather than GACT because chromium emissions are very
toxic. Thus,  the potential to emit question does not arise for this standard.

      The chromium electroplating MACT was proposed in December 1993.  Banker
summarized the technology-based standards in the proposal. The emission limit format gives
the source flexibility by not requiring a specific technology.  The EPA looked at the MACT
floor and going beyond.

•     Hard Chrome Electroplating

      This is the major emitting source among the three. The EPA found that requirements
could go beyond the MACT floor for large existing sources.  All new sources and large
existing sources have an emission limit of 0.013 mg/dscm, based on composite mesh-pad
system.   Small existing sources have an emission limit of 0.03 mg/dscm, the MACT floor,
based on packed-bed  scrubbers.

•     Decorative Chromium Electroplating

      The MACT floor is based on fume suppressants for chromic acid baths.  Both new
and existing sources have an emission limit of 40 dynes per cm. New and existing trivalent
chromium baths have fume suppressants as a bath component,  which is an adequate control.
The  emission limit for trivalent chromium baths is 55 dynes per cm.

•     Chromium Anodizing

      The emission limit for both new and existing sources is 40 dynes per cm based on
fume suppressants.

      Banker explained that the compliance schedule varied by type of process, with  a 1
year compliance deadline  for hard chrome platers, and 3 months for decorative platers and
chrome anodizing.
                                         37

-------
       rhe EPA s .iow considering  >jm:nents on the proposed rule, which were extensive
and addressed every aspect of the rule.  The majority of the comments were on monitoring,
reporting and recordkeeping requirements, which many commenters considered to be too
burdensome.  Commenters also felt that the compliance dates were too short.  Commenters
include State and local agencies and  industry. There will likely be some revisions to the
proposed rules based on the comments and data received.
                                          38

-------
                            Questions and Answers on the
                       Chrome Electroplaters MACT Standard

Question:  Will area sources be required to get title V permits?

Answer: Yes.  Chromium is highly toxic and  permits for area sources will help ensure
implementation of and compliance with the standard.

Question:  What emission factors were used in the chromium project?  Will the EPA offer
help with the impact of requiring  permits for area  sources? Having to get an operating
permit does not reduce the impact of area sources.

Answer: Emission factors are found in  the technical  support document which can be found
on the TTN.  For hard chrome plating, the factor  was 10 mg per ampere hour and for
decorative chrome plating, 2 mg per ampere hour.  Chromium anodizing is found in the
technical support document.   (Lalit  Banker)

       The EPA may  include a sample permit  in the enabling guidance that will be published
after the rule is promulgated.  This  may help to reduce the burden  on the State and local
agencies.  (Lalit Banker)
                                          39

-------
                            MACT STANDARD UPDATE

                                      Degreasers
                                   Paul Almodovar
                     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

       The MACT standard for degreasers was proposed on November 29, 1993 at 58 FR
62566.  The EPA team is now in the process of addressing comments received during the
public comment period.   The proposed standard covers both new and existing major and area
sources of batch vapor cleaners, cold and vapor in-line cleaners, and batch cold cleaners,
using any of these solvents:  methylene chloride; perchloroethylene; trichloroethylene; 1,1,1
trichloroethane; carbon tetrachloride; or chloroform.

       The standard subdivided the source category into six subcategories:

       •     Batch Vapor Cleaners
                    small,        < 0.6 m2
                    medium,      > 0.6 to 1.21 m2
                    large,         > 1.21 to  2.51 m2
                    very large,     > 2.51 m2

       •     In-line cleaners all sizes

       •     Batch cold cleaners  all sizes

       The proposed rule offered several compliance determination alternatives for batch
vapor and in-line  cleaning machine owners and operators.  These were an equipment
standard with work practices, an  idling emission limit with work practices, or an overall
solvent emission limit. The proposed batch cold cleaner requirements are being revised.

       The EPA estimated  that the proposed rule would achieve HAP emission reductions of
88,400  tons per year,  with  a net national savings of $30 million due to reduced solvent
consumption.

       The degreasing MACT is scheduled to be promulgated in November 1994.  A
guidance document is  due out in January and is being developed in cooperation with the
Small Business  Assistance program.  It will include information on the compliance options,
sample  forms, and information on alternative solvents and technologies.
                                          40

-------
                            Questions and Answers on the
                             Degreasers MACT Standard

Question:  Will the EPA provide any assistance in source identification?

Answer: The EPA went to State data bases to identify sources during the rule development.
These data bases were somewhat helpful in identifying sources.  Due to the nature of this
source category, identifying all sources is going to be difficult.
                                           41

-------
                            MAC!  STANDARD UPDATE

                                    Dry Cleaning
                                    George Smith
                     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

      The percholorethylene dry cleaning MACT was promulgated in September 1993, and
the EPA is now working to implement this standard which regulates many small businesses.
Because promulgation was difficult and the EPA got a tremendous number of comments, the
Agency  held a public meeting in New  York City.  Both environmental groups and industry
representatives participated.  There seemed to be a consensus that the standard could have
required more stringent controls.  Many dry cleaners have contamination problems and are
facing expensive Superfund clean ups,  so the industry proposed  more stringent controls if
they could be allowed to put together a fund  for clean up operations. This provision is now
in place in Florida and an  amendment  to the  Superfund legislation is being considered to
allow this trade off.

      Dry cleaners refer to this trade  off as  "Vision 2000." It  will result in better
controlled sources and will save many  dry  cleaners who are facing clean up operations from
bankruptcy.

      Several State regulatory initiatives are underway: California's toxic rule is going
through the 112(1) process, and New York has a regulatory negotiation underway.  The
California rule is more stringent than the MACT standard, and the  New York rule appears
that it will be more stringent than the California rule.
                                          42

-------
                            Questions and Answers on the
                            Dry Cleaning MACT Standard

Question:  How is the EPA planning to address the phase out of CFCs since refrigerated
condensers are the main dry cleaning control technology?

Answer:  The EPA is planning on letting the market handle this.  The refrigerants being
used are the type less likely to be phased out, similar to those in household air conditioners.

Question:  What is the status of the Green Peace "green clean" proposal?  Wisconsin tried  to
propose the EPA rule as  it is,  but Green Peace has been opposed.

Answer:  The "green clean" process cleans with out perc.  The process has not turned out as
well as expected.

Question:  Has the EPA developed any specifications for  room enclosures for transfer
mechanisms?

Answer:  No, other than what is in the MACT.  The EPA does not expect to see many for
compliance, as there  are  not that many applicable sources.

Question: Does the  EPA  have any plans to come up with revisions or supplements to the
MACT?

Answer:  OAQPS is  waiting to  see if the Superfund amendment passes, as it will solve  many
of the current issues.  The EPA may have to issue an amended  dry cleaning rule if this
passes.
                                          43

-------
                            MACT STANDARD UPDATE

                        Hazardous Organics NESHAP (RON)
                                  Warren Johnson
                     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

      The final HON was signed on February 28, 1994 and appeared in the Federal
Register on April 22, 1994 (59 FR  19402). It is available on the OAQPS TTN and the
background information document is available from NTIS. The EPA estimated that the HON
will result in emission reductions of 500,000 tons of HAPs per year, VOC reductions of 1
million tons per year, and significant reduction in exposure to HAPs.  Promulgation of the
HON made the 112 pollutants covered in that standard "regulated air pollutants."

      The HON consists of the following subparts:
             Subpart F           Applicability for SOCMI
             Subpart G           Vents, transfer, storage, and wastewater
             Subpart H           Equipment leaks (a negotiated rule)
             Subpart I            Applicability for non-SOCMI

      One unique feature of the HON attributable to negotiated rulemaking is the existing
source compliance  dates for equipment leaks.  Depending upon the group, compliance dates
range from October 24, 1994 to October 24, 1995.

      The emissions averaging provisions in  the HON have  been an area of controversy.
Emissions averaging is limited  to 20 points per plant, with an additional 5 points allowed if
those emission points use  pollution prevention measures.   Under subpart G [40 CFR
63.112(g)], States may prohibit emission averaging.

      Johnson summarized the reporting requirements under the HON.   Initial notification is
required within 120 days after promulgation.  Sources may be granted up to a  1-year
compliance extension if control cannot be achieved in time.  The extension  must be approved
by the EPA.  An implementation plan may serve as a proxy for a permit application. The
plan is due 18 months before the compliance date for points that are averaged, and 12
months for non-averaged points.  The notification of compliance status, consisting of
performance test results and parameter ranges, is due 150 days  after the compliance date.
Reports on excursion data and changes are due periodically.  Other  reports are tied to four
specific events.

      The EPA has established a HON information line at (919) 541-5299. Several
documents on the HON are available on the TTN, and a question/answer document is
scheduled to be added soon.  The EPA is working on an expert system for emission
averaging.
                                         44

-------
                            Questions and Answers on the
                               HON MACT Standard

Question:  Was the EPA sued on the HON?

Answer: Yes, litigation was brought by the CMA and Dow Chemical, and the issues are
being addressed.  THe EPA will be putting out a correction notice in September.  The
CMA's issues mostly address wastewater, and most of the Dow issues are related to
equipment leaks. Some of the issues overlap with  the General Provisions.

       Three new notices are pending: an overall amendment to correct errors,  a notice
resulting from the litigation, and PTE clarification.
                                          45

-------
                            MACT STANDARD UPDATE

                          Industrial Process Cooling Towers
                                    Phil Mulrine
                    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

      This MACT standard eliminates the use of chromium compounds in cooling towers.
The final rule was published in the Federal Register on September 8, 1994.  Sources have 12
months to make their initial notifications and 18 months to comply. A notification of
compliance status is required by the compliance date.  There are no reporting or
recordkeeping requirements for facilities that no longer use chromium chemicals.
                                         46

-------
                            Questions and Answers on the
                  Industrial Process Cooling Towers MACT Standard

Question:  Is there any benefit for a State to take delegation of this standard, especially
when the State has a similar rule in effect?  (Bob Fletcher, CARD)

Answer: Each State will have to evaluate and decide about taking delegation.  (Phil
Mulrine)

Question:  Why were no other HAPs considered?

Answer: Some HAPs will be addressed in other standards.  For instance, leaks going back
to the tower would be covered under the HON.  According to the section 114 data collected,
chromium is the only HAP that is a problem at cooling towers.  (Phil Mulrine)
                                         47

-------
                            MACT STANDARD UPDATE

                                Petroleum Refineries
                                    Jim Durham
                    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

      This MACT standard covers all  190 petroleum refineries. It was proposed in June
30, 1994 and, under court order, is scheduled to be promulgated by June 30, 1995.  The
structure of this MACT is similar to that of the HON in that it covers storage vessels,
equipment leaks, process vents, and wastewater collection and treatment, and has emission
averaging provisions.
      For storage tanks, the EPA proposed two options:  the HON requirements for seals
on floating roofs and HON requirements for seals and fittings on floating roofs.  The
proposed equipment leaks provisions are similar to the negotiated rule provisions in the
HON.  Process  vents would be required to control if the HAP content exceeds 20 ppmv, and
reduce by 98 percent or to 20 ppmv,  whichever is less stringent. No additional control
requirements were proposed for wastewater for refineries in compliance with the benzene
waste NESHAP.  Emission averaging was permitted among storage vessels, wastewater and
process  vents.  The emission averaging provisions are the same  as the HON. The EPA
requested comment on averaging between refineries and marine  terminals.

      The major industry commenters at the public hearing were the American Petroleum
Institute (API),  the National Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA), and the Small Refiners
Coalition. Comments and suggestions from industry include:

      •     API likes inter-source emissions averaging and suggested expanding it to
             include all co-located sources such  as SOCMI sources and truck and railcar
             transfers.

      •     API agrees with the EPA's proposal not to impose requirements for
             wastewater beyond those required by the benzene waste NESHAP.

      •     NPRA suggested that the EPA withdraw the entire proposal and reassess the
             cost/benefit ratio.

      •     The EPA should allow refineries to delay the installation of controls on storage
             tanks until the next scheduled maintenance. (The HON  allows delays.)

      •     The EPA should include applicability cutoffs for  process vents based on HAP
             concentration,  flow rate, and cost effectiveness.   (The HON has such cutoffs.)
                                         48

-------
                            Questions and Answers on the
                         Petroleum Refinery MACT Standard

Question:  Does the rule allow States to disallow ... like the HON? (could not hear on
tape - Can Jim Durham fill in?))

Answer: The rule allows States to override this  provision.  Industry does not like this.

Question:  Does this cover MTBE plants?

Answer: No, they are covered by the HON.

Question:  Is risk review required, like on the HON?

Answer: Yes.

Question:  Does the rule say that States do not have to include emissions averaging?

Answer: Yes.

Question:  The Bay Area has refineries that are  meeting the I&M requirements quarterly and
leak detection and repair at 100 ppm.  This is better than required under the refinery
standard.  Did the EPA  consider  these sources?

Answer: The refinery standard was taken directly from the HON,  with minor changes.

Question:  Regarding the suggestion that the EPA withdraw and  reconsider this standard, is
industry suggesting using revised correlation equation in AP-42?

Answer: No, this was simply a  sweeping comment from representatives of small refineries.
They  feel that MACT floors are different for small refineries located in ozone attainment
areas  than for large refineries located in nonattainment areas.

Question:  Which cost/benefit correlation equations were used?

Answer: Deferred.

Question:  What was the definition of source?

Answer: The entire refinery is the source.
                                          49

-------
                        General Questions and Answers on the
                              MACT Standards Updates

Question:  Will there be implementation guidance documents for each MACT standard?
States need this information quickly.  (Joann Held, New Jersey)

Answer: The EPA is doing different things for different standards and trying to determine
the best follow up activities.  For complicated standards like the HON, numerous aids are
being done. For a simple standard, the EPA might just do an enabling document.  The EPA
wants State feedback on what would be the  most useful.  (Linda Herring, OAQPS)

Comment: It is important to rethink including area sources in the title V program.  These
small sources are not posing much risk.

Response:  Tim Smith noted  that the rulemaking he was addressing had nothing to do with
whether area sources should get title V permits or not. There are only about six source
categories for  which area sources  are involved.  The EPA would appreciate comments on
this.  (Tim Smith, OAQPS)

Question:  Has the EPA taken a position on emissions averaging?  Will it be in all of the
MACT rules?

Answer:  No, developers of each MACT standard will consider whether emissions averaging
is appropriate.  It will depend on  the standard.  It is  not a simple thing to do.

Question:  The EPA MACT  regulations use emission limits and controls to reduce air toxics
risks.  New York and the Bay Area AQMD have also found that ventilation controls can
reduce dry cleaning air toxics risks. Should the EPA also consider such measures in their
MACT regulations.  (Jack Lauber, New York)

Answer:  Increased ventilation or various techniques of capturing emissions from the dry
cleaning process and venting these emissions to  the atmosphere are not considered emission
control technologies.  Ventilation is considered a means of transferring emissions from one
point to another. Consequently, ventilation was not and is not considered an alternative or a
candidate for maximum achievable control technology (i.e., MACT).  On the other hand, as
pointed out, ventilation can be effective in reducing risks to certain populations, such as
individuals living in apartments  co-located in a building with dry cleaning facilities. To this
extent, State and local agencies  should consider the use of ventilation where the situation
seems to merit this  approach as  a means of reducing risk.
                                          50

-------
                           Implementing a MACT Standard
                                   Charlie Garlow
                  Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Speakers:  Umesh Dholokia, EPA Region IV
          Maggie Corbin, Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency

       Compliance assistance, compliance assurance, and enforcement are important aspects
of implementing a MACT standard.  Congress has noted that the EPA needs to do a better
job on compliance and enforcement.  The EPA is out for risk reduction and emission
reduction, not collecting fines or imposing jail time, even though these are useful tools for
compliance.

       Congress gave the EPA better tools for enforcement, namely the better criminal
enforcement,  better citizen suit enforcement, administrative enforcement, and field citations.
The permit program and enhanced monitoring programs will greatly help in enforcement
through information gathering and "self confession."

       Regarding enhanced  monitoring, the enhanced  monitoring provisions in MACT
standards must have averaging times  that make sense and will produce the kind of data that
will say if a source is in or out of compliance. Monitoring results should be directly
enforceable so that the EPA can take information on violations directly to court.  It is
important that the enhanced  monitoring rule (part 64)  be promulgated soon, but it only
affects "older rules," that is, the existing NESHAPs such as vinyl chloride.  The new MACT
standards will include the enhanced monitoring concepts.

       In addition to monitoring data, recordkeeping and reporting of data will be important.
Some disagreement has arisen over the requirement to retain records for 5 years, but this is
an important provision in cases where violations occur over a long period of time.  Another
common argument is that reporting provisions are too burdensome.  However, reports will
be a useful tool in enforcement, especially with the large number of sources involved.

       During the development of MACT standards, the development team should look
closely at the averaging schemes to make sure they are enforceable.

       The EPA's enforcement office has prepared an enforcement strategy for the HON and
is seeking feedback from State and local agencies on this strategy.
                                         51

-------
                 implementing a MACT Standard-Regional Perspective
                                   Umesh Dholokia
                                    EPA Region H

       From the EPA Regional perspective,  implementation activities for MACT standards
occur before and after delegation of the standard.  These activities include:

       1.     Develop an understanding of the rule.

       2.     Develop an inventory of affected sources.  The OAQPS generally has a list of
             the sources considered in the MACT standard development.

       3.     Inform sources of the standard.

       4.     Train permit writers and inspectors.

       5.     Review initial  notifications. Dholokia noted that many dry cleaner
             notifications have lacked information.

       6.     Review compliance determinations.

       7.     Ensure enforcement.

       8.     Prepare operating permits.

       Before delegation, the EPA Regional office is responsible for implementation of the
standard.  State/Regional partnerships can be formed at this time, taking various forms, such
as joint inspections.  Sources are often more comfortable dealing with State agencies.

       After delegation of the MACT standards to a State, the Regional office is available to
provide assistance such as joint inspections and permit review.

       Contrasting implementation of a MACT standards with an NSPS or SIP, MACTs are
generally more  inclusive, addressing the entire source, all HAPs, multiple emission points,
and equipment leaks (i.e., fugitive emissions).  The MACT approach to compliance is also
different.  MACT standards  have enhanced monitoring provisions, including continuous
monitoring. An annual part  70 certification is required and records are an important
enforcement tool.  No grandfathering is allowed for MACT standards, as is often the case
for NSPS and SIPs.  Compliance activities are also different under the MACT standards,
compared with NSPS and SIPs.  Monitoring data can be used for compliance under MACT
standards, for example.
                                          52

-------
               Implementation and Enforcement of EPA NESHAPs by a
                                    Local Agency
                                   Maggie Corbin
                      Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency

      Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) regulations are based on the
following principles: tough but fair, short and simple, emphasis on local enforcement through
field inspection, economic equity, principled rule development.  By contrast, Corbin noted
that the EPA regulations are complex and emphasize monitoring and recordkeeping and do
not assume a local field presence, but rather rely on "desk enforcement."  Despite these
differences, the EPA and PSAPCA have common goals: to reduce toxic emissions, to ensure
adequate enforcement of regulations, and to delegate/take delegation of regulations.

      Delegation under section  112(1)  is important to achieving those goals. In making this
work successfully, it is important to realize  the differing philosophies of the EPA and  local
agencies. State and local agencies need to reevaluate and improve their existing regulations
based on information in the EPA rule.  In making the NESHAPs work for their locality,
agencies need to carefully consider whether to adopt the standard by reference or to change
it. The EPA  must be flexible, as the Agency cannot change the State and local agency
philosophy.  The EPA must also rely on  the Regional offices which are familiar with how
State and local agencies operate.
      For the NESHAPs under development, Corbin encouraged the EPA to follow the five
PSAPCA principles she listed, and to involve enforcement personnel during the rule
development process.
                                         53

-------
                              Questions and Answers on
                           Implementing a MACT Standard

Question:  Will the EPA develop a penalty policy? Will the EPA change the definition of
"significant violator"?

Answer: The EPA will come up with penalty policies where needed or if the general
penalty policy is insufficient.  The EPA is changing the definition of "significant violator."

Question:  Is there a guidance document on the definition of "significant violator"?

Answer: Yes, the guidance will have a new definition of "significant violation."

Question:  What about periodic monitoring?

Answer: All title  V permitted sources must have periodic monitoring which is less than
enhanced monitoring. Enhanced monitoring is preferable.

Comment:  Periodic monitoring will be reported on a semiannual basis, but will be very
similar to enhanced monitoring.  Enhance monitoring will be reported quarterly.

Response:  The September court ordered deadline  for the enhanced  monitoring rule has been
pushed back to December 20, 1994.

Question:  What about the enhanced monitoring SIP call?

Answer: States are required  to adopt the language in the SIP call, but are not required to
adopt the language in the enhanced monitoring rule in the SIP.  Some State constitutions do
not allow States to adopt a Federal rule until it is final, but States can base SIP changes on
the permit rule which is final.
                                          54

-------
                       Rule Start-up and Communication Issues
                                      Holly Reid
                     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

                                     Joann Held
          Bureau Chief, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

       This session offered a preview of a related interactive session.  Reid hailed the
transfer of information that occurred at the December 1993 Brown Summit meeting where
State and local agencies, headquarters the EPA and  the EPA Regional offices were all
equally represented.  The goal  of this meeting was to discuss some urgent implementation
issues and to report back  to the toxics task force. The task force is composed of senior
management in the EPA headquarters, Regions and  State and local agencies and is
responsible for building effective partnerships  between these groups and for addressing
implementation principles.  Members include Bob Colby, Don Theiler, Winston Smith, Stan
Myberg, and Bruce Jordan.  Participants learned three important lessons:   ownership and
trust, respect for differing expertise and the extensive talent among the groups represented,
and the importance of taking responsibility for the recommendations.

       The Brown Summit meeting resulted in 38 recommendations.  A report describing
actions taken on these recommendations through July 1994  is available on the TTN and on
MAPS.  It was the successful interactive sessions at the  Brown Summit meeting that led to
the decision to conduct interactive sessions at this workshop.

       Reid characterized  rule  start-up as involving jobs that required a considerable amount
of communication and negotiation skills.  She described the first two issues that the Rule
Start-up and Communication Issue subgroup would  be discussing.  The first issue was
improving the workgroup process and/or MACT team communication to ensure Regional
office and State and local agency participation. The appendix in the  workshop notebook
includes a list of active section 112 workgroups and contacts for those groups. Reid
explained that the standard development process is changing.  Only 25 percent of the MACT
standards in the 7 to  10 year category will require the formal workgroup  process.  The
remainder will,  instead, convene informal groups that assemble relevant interests.  Reid
posed the question of how frequently these groups should communicate to meet each other's
expectations.  What types of communication will bring as much representation as possible?
She cited the aerospace NESHAP as an example of standard development through a
successful partnership arrangement.  This team did  considerable "up  front" communication,
including nine roundtables.

       The second issue to be addressed by this subgroup in the interactive sessions is
integrating implementation concerns into the MACT development process, early in the
process.  The subgroup will discuss  the implementation  checklist for writers of MACT
standards, designed to bring up cross-programmatic questions.  Reid pointed out that States
have requested that enabling documents be available earlier than in the past.


                                          55

-------
      Joann Held described the last two issues that wiii be addressee b-- the subgroup. One
of those issues was the development of a communication strategy for all headquarters,
Regional and State and local agency partners following the promulgation of a rule.  Held
stressed the need to start very early with such communication and to continue it in every step
of rule development.   She cited the dry cleaning rule as an example of a rule that was
lacking in timely communication.  At the Brown Summit meeting,  participants  developed a
table known as the "MACT Summary Table" to use through the entire MACT  development
process to transmit information to the States as  the standard is worked on.   Staff from
Georgia's Division of Environmental Protection refined this communication strategy which
outlines the "what, who, when, and how" communication  from  prework group through
implementation.

       The final topic the subgroup will discuss is the identification of methods for State and
local agencies  to use  in adopting rules  in-State,  once they are promulgated by the EPA.
There are 32 States that cannot take straight delegation from the EPA, but must write and
promulgate State rules. This is difficult, given  the time deadlines in the Act.  Some of these
timing concerns could perhaps be addressed during development of the Federal MACT
standard.  States may develop memoranda of understanding with Regional  offices to define
how their rule-adopting process will work.   The subgroup will discuss a draft MOU.

       Reid asked that agencies complete a survey form on the  agency burden  of 112(1)
submittals.
                                          56

-------
                              Questions and Answers on
                                 Rule Start-Up Issues

Question:  What are the criteria for determining which MACT standards do not require the
traditional work group process?  (Don Theiler - Wisconsin)

Answer: The EPA has developed a new system of streamling to get rules through the
system more quickly.  There are now three tiers for defining the necessary level of
involvement across the EPA offices. Minor rules  that would have very limited interest by
multiple EPA offices would be tier three.  There would not  be a formal  workgroup closure
process for such rules.  However,  rules that affect a broad sector of the economy (e.g.,  the
HON or the pulp and paper rule) would be tier one, and would require more formal and
lengthy review. This system focuses senior management's time on the most important rules.
Currently the OAQPS is deciding which rules should  undergo which process.  (Karen
Blanchard)

Comment:  Regarding enabling documents, the OAQPS wants to provide these more  quickly
for all standards, but sometimes it is necessary to  make choices between  other types of
standards work. The OAQPS needs to find a way  to create enabling documents as efficiently
as possible.
                                          57

-------
                                Section 112(1) Delegation
                                      Janet Beloin
                                      EPA Region I
Speakers:  Anthony Toney, EPA Region IV
           Robert Fletcher, California Air Resources Board
       In describing the section 112(1) delegation process, Beloin presented a flow chart to
illustrate the various steps and options for 112(1) delegation  from a State's perspective.  After
promulgation of a MACT standard, a State would determine if any applicable sources were
located in the State.  If not, seeking delegation of the standard may not be necessary.  If
applicable sources were located in the  State, then the State would determine if it had  existing
rules pertaining to those sources, and if it was desirable to keep these rules.  If  so, then the
agency could apply for delegation under 40 CFR 63.92, 63.93, or 63.94, or, if the rules
were not as stringent, the agency would  need to modify their rules.  If a State had no similar
rule in place upon MACT promulgation, and the State did not want to alter the  MACT rule,
straight delegation under 40 CFR 63.91  would be the way to go.  On the other  hand, if the
State wanted to alter the MACT rule, it  could seek delegation under 40 CFR 63.92, 63.93,
or 63.94, if the alterations did not lower the stringency of the MACT standard.  State
processes for accepting delegation include automatically getting the Federal rule, adopting the
Federal rule by reference, and incorporating the provisions into State rules.

       The part  63 rules promulgated in respond to section  112(1) have four delegation
options:

       Section 63.91        This is the straight delegation process.  It can be combined with
                           a part 70 submittal, as many of the resource demonstrations
                           required are done in the part 70 submittal.  The part 70
                           submittal should set up the process for straight delegation so that
                           Federal rulemaking is not required for each delegation.
                           Additional State requirements may exist, but the process will be
                           streamlined from the Federal standpoint.  Before part 70
                           approval, any 112(1) submittal  under this option would have to
                           undergo Federal rulemaking.

       Section 63.92        This rule adjustment option  is used for rules that are not
                           identical to the Federal rule, but  that are at least as stringent.
                           There are only eight allowable  adjustments under this option.
                           Federal rulemaking is required  for the first  112(1) submittal, but
                           State rulemaking is optional. Once a 112(1) submittal has  been
                           approved, no Federal rulemaking is  necessary if the State has
                           completed a public review process.


                                           58

-------
      Section 63.93        Adjustments other than the eight allowed unau oj.92 would tv.
                           addressed under 63.93.  Each rule must go through a separate
                           Federal rulemaking  because the MACT standard is being
                           substantially changed.

      Section 63.94        This is the program delegation option, available after approval
                           of a part 70 program.  This option establishes a mechanism for
                           delegation of a more stringent program without additional
                           rulemaking.  Approval of the program would have to go through
                           Federal rulemaking.

      Some of the benefits of 112(1) delegation  are that the State is the primary contact after
delegation, whereas before delegation, the Regional office is the primary contact; delegated
standards are federally enforceable even if they are more stringent than the Federal standard;
delegation helps enforceability; delegation avoids dual regulations; and delegation preserves
State and local programs that are working well.

      Area sources pose special questions.  When area sources are subject to part 70 as
specified in each MACT standard, then the title V demonstration  may be adequate for
straight  delegation.  Non-part 70 sources, where the MACT standard defers or exempts area
sources, require a separate delegation request and demonstratL. .   A statement of reso;>~oes
may suffice if the State already regulates similar sources.  States seeking to take delegation
of only part 70 sources must show that sources can be easily separated into part 70 and non-
part 70 sources.  Regarding separation and partial delegation, if some sources are regulated
by the State and  some by the Region, it can be very confusing to sources.

      Region I has used section 105 grant money to encourage States to begin thinking
about delegation of both part 70 and non-part 70 sources, and identifying any differences in
MACT standards and State rules, if applicable. This allows the Region to plan resources.
                                           59

-------
                            Questions and Answers on the
                    Section 112(1) Delegation Process -- Janet Beloin

Question:  Area sources have been deferred under the dry cleaning MACT, but why are they
not considered part 70 sources?  The EPA Regions interpret  this differently.

Answer:  Major sources must get operating permits.  Area sources are deferred 5 years
under the dry cleaning standard  and are not considered part 70 sources until they are required
to get an operating permit.  Some Regions are trying to use  section 105 money for non-part
70 sources.

Comment:  Regarding area sources under MACT standards, the EPA can defer or exempt
area sources.

Question: Is section 105 money available to fund non-part 70 source programs?

Answer:  The EPA needs to  discuss this as there seem to be conflicts.
                                           60

-------
                           Section 112(1) Delegation Process
                                    Anthony Toney
                                    EPA Region IV

       Toney's presentation centered around several EPA resources available to help States
seeking section 112(1) delegations:

       •  Pre-submittal conferences between the Regional office and the State seeking
delegation are  very useful and save resources because problems can be worked out early in
the process.

       •  Section 105 grant funding, while the future of this funding is not clear, can
currently be used for section 112(1) delegation of non-part 70 sources.  This money can be
used for contractor support or for work details.

       •  Guidance documents are useful for implementation and for delegation submittals.

       •  Case studies have been done by the OAQPS on 112(1) submittals for Texas and
North Carolina. These listed impediments and items  that were approvable or not approvable.
They indicated that pre-submittal is very useful.

       •  A compilation of 112(1) submittal summaries

       •  EPA bulletin boards

       •  A question and answer publication has been done in Region IV and put on the
Region IV  network.  The OAQPS  has begun a similar document and may enter it on the
TTN.

       •  Policy statements are available on the TTN.

       •  Another resource area is rotational assignments where the EPA staff work in State
and local agencies.
                                           61

-------
                           Section 112(1) Delegation Process:
                                  California Perspective
                                    Robert Fletcher
                            California Air Resources Board

       The California legislature adopted a law in  1983 for toxic air contaminant
identification and control, and a "Hot Spots" program in 1987. Both laws were amended in
1992.  California is one of 18 States with authority to directly implement and enforce a
Federal standard.  California law requires the State to implement the Federal rule unless the
State needs to be more stringent or has a rule in place already.

       Under California's existing State program, eight statewide airborne toxic control
measures have been adopted, and 7,000 sources are affected by these measures.  The Hot
Spots program affects 30,000 sources.  California has 34 local air pollution control districts.
The local districts have primary responsibility for control at  stationary sources,  and must
implement and enforce State toxic control measures.  Districts may  adopt additional
regulations for both criteria and toxic pollutants.  Half of the districts, the larger ones, have
toxic new source review  policies  and rules.

       Fletcher addressed some general issues seen in California with the delegation process.
Flexibility in  112(1) review is very important, as California wants to implement their existing
air toxics programs.  Regarding timing, some States will use a memorandum of
understanding with the Regional office to adopt the MACT standard since it takes a long time
to go through the  112(1)  delegation process.  Finally, the EPA consistency among Regions is
important.

       Some issues specific to emission standards are flexibility and rule substitution.
Flexibility is essential. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements will be the most difficult
area to demonstrate equal stringency.  Fletcher posed the question,  can California do a
general provisions rule on their recordkeeping and reporting showing that the California rules
are equally as stringent.  Rule substitution is a concern because it is very time consuming
and resource intensive to prepare the 112(1) submittal.

       Fletcher presented a discussion of the perc dry cleaning rule as a case study of
California's experience with section 112(1) delegation.  The  dry cleaning MACT standard
was issued by the EPA on September 22, 1993, and California adopted its standard  on
October 14,  1993.  Thus, there were dual regulations  in place, a situation the State had
hoped  to avoid.  California's proposed standard went out before the EPA's final standard was
promulgated,  and  communication with the EPA was somewhat hampered because of ex pane
comment rules.

       California has been working on the equivalency demonstration ever since
promulgation.  Communication with the EPA has been good,  as both groups figure  out what
is needed for the delegation. There were some aspects of the EPA standard that California


                                           62

-------
chose not io change (e.g., monitoring at the carbon adsorber outlet and tut i -vquency of
recordkeeping), even though the 112(1) delegation process was made more difficult by this
decision. Fletcher believes that the California rule is more  stringent.

       In trying to get 112(1) approval for the State's dry cleaning issues,  GARB addressed
general equivalency issues and technical issues. Among general equivalency issues, were the
resource assessment, legal authority, expeditious implementation, and a line-by-line
comparison of the requirements. GARB is looking in to trying to do one resource assessment
for all MACT standards, rather than for each delegation.  California lacked some legal
enforcement authority for area sources, as section 112(1) requires the same criminal
enforcement authority for area sources that is required for major sources under the title V
permit program.

       Technical  issues posing difficulties included emissions comparisons for different
scenarios such as  phasing out vented and transfer machines, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, and inspection frequency.  For all scenarios,  over the life of the equipment,
the California standard achieved greater emission reduction  than the Federal standard.
However, since the California standard called for phasing out some  equipment that the
Federal standard required controls  on, the Federal standard  showed  greater emission
reduction in the early years.  Regarding the requirement to  keep records for 5 years,
California used a 2-year recordkeeping requirement or until the source is inspected,
whichever is longer.  GARB believes that their environmental training program for operators
coupled with their recordkeeping requirements are equally as stringent.  Section 112(1)
requires  six-month reporting, yet this is not included in the  General  Provisions or the MACT
standard. California requires annual reporting, and the Federal standard does not require
reporting.

       Another technical issue was the area versus major source definitions. GARB will be
submitting an equivalency request just for area sources.  The CARB regulation does not have
a definition of major source,  which the MACT standard does, and California wants to retain
that definition of major source.

       Fletcher suggested several toxics new source review procedures  that would simplify
 112(1) delegations:  resolve the potential-to-emit issue, accept de minimis levels as baseline,
accept top-down T-BACT determinations, and substitute risk assessments for hazard ranking
in an optional offset program.

       There are some instances where 112(1) delegation  may not work.  One is alternatives
to command and  control. California has a risk assessment and reduction process, which is
the type of requirement that is not conducive to a 112(1) command and control process.
Second is where  multiple State rules cover a single MACT  standard. The BAAQMD has
nine rules that cover the HON.  Next is where SIP-approved  rules address the same sources
as a MACT standard,  since SIP-approved rules are already  federally enforceable. Finally,
the EPA needs to be more flexible in the approval of State  programs.


                                           63

-------
Fletcher summed up his presentation with these points:

1.     Flexibility  is critical to successful application of 112(1)  delegation.

2.     A smooth interface is  needed to ensure effective toxics  programs at the State
       and local levels.

3.     Regulatory changes may be necessary to ensure a smooth interface.

4.     It is essential that States and the EPA work together to  identify and resolve
       key issues.
                                      64

-------
                              Questions and Answers on
                               Section 112(1) Delegation

Question:  How will California fund implementation of the dry cleaning standard?  (Jack
McGrogan, Pennsylvania)

Answer: The State requires local districts to implement and enforce the standards.  Most
districts have resources to implement and enforce, but if not the State helps.  Dry cleaners
are issued permitted in the State, so permit fees will be available.  Funds will come from 105
funds, as well as from other types of fees, such as the South Coasts' toxics fee.  (Bob
Fletcher, California)

Question:  If dry cleaners can keep records for 2 years, why not 5 years? (Charlie Garlow,
EPA OECA)

Answer:  California requires weekly records and checklists.  It does not seem necessary to
keep these.  For some it would be no problem,  but the very small cleaners have a high
turnover and limited space.  If the administrative burden is too large, the ability to  adopt
stringent rules is compromised. In addition,  California's emphasis is on keeping operations
in compliance through good training and inspection. Different lengths of record retention
time reflects a difference in philosophy between the State and  the EPA.  (Bob Fletcher,
California)

Question:  What about violations that go on  for more than 5 years?  (Charlie Garlow, EPA
OECA)

Answer:  California makes sure that sources are in compliance and does up front training to
help sources achieve and sustain compliance.  Extended violations should not be a problem.

Question:  What about extending this process to RCRA and other cross media concerns?
(Robert Todd, Texas)

Answer:  Section 112(1) is  specific to the Act.

Question:  Regarding State submittal of a substitute risk-based program under 112(1)  (under
40 CFR 63.94), what part is  federally enforceable? Is the  only federally enforceable
component that which is incorporated in the MACT standard? (Pat Lavin, New York)

Answer:  In  this case,  a State would submit a request for approval of a program so they
would incorporate terms and conditions in the permit that were more stringent than the
MACT  standard.  The terms and conditions incorporated in the permit are federally
enforceable.  (Judy  Tracy, EPA OGC)
                                          65

-------
Question-,  Would this mea:. a program federally enforceable State-by-State, whov one Statt
would be more stringent than another?  (Pat Lavin, New York)

Answer: Yes. This is analogous to SIP-approved programs where different limits are
federally enforceable. (Judy Tracy, EPA OGC)

Question:  Is it correct that dry cleaner acceptability in California is based on a risk level of
1 in 100,000,  and if the residual risk is greater than 1 in 10,000 then the source would not
be approved?  New  York modeling shows several dry cleaners at the 1 in  10,000 to 1 in
100,000 range. This is a contentious issue in New York. What is your opinion on the
precedent being set when a controlled source can only get to 1 in 10,000?  With this
downward trend, 1 in 10,000 becomes a rallying point for other sources.  (Pat Lavin, New
York)

Answer: Indeed, this is a contentious issue.  Two different programs would apply in
California.   One is the technology-based control measure requirement, which  requires the
maximum reduction in consideration of cost and residual risk.  Some districts have new
source review with a special provision for dry cleaners that lets them go up to 1 in 10,000,
where other sources must meet 1 in 100,000.  For existing sources at greater than 1 in
10,000, under the risk reduction audit plan program, the District requires a plan to show how
the source will get below the risk level in 5 years.  CARB is looking at other ways to reduce
perc consumption at these sources.

Comment:  In evaluating resource demonstrations for 112(1) submittals, the EPA should give
States flexibility.  Many States require carrying  out Federal  mandates, but the legislature
requires rulemaking for anything that is optional, such  as  the non-part 70 sources.

Response:   Please submit to the EPA what you  consider a reasonable resource demonstration
to be. (Karen  Blanchard, OAQPS)

Question:  We are  seeking federally enforceable methods to limit PTE, and assume that
112(1) approval must be received to limit HAPs through a "general voluntary emission cap"
or "prohibitory rule" made at the State or local level.  The communication with the EPA so
far has  only addressed use of 112(1) for MACT  (or 112 standards) rather than for more
generic rules to limits HAPs.  Can we receive guidance for  this?  (Lester Keel, Northwest
Air Pollution Control Authority, Washington)

Answer:  Guidance will be forthcoming on this issue.

Question:  What happens if a State does  not take 112(1) delegation for a source category
because it has no sources and then a source comes into  the State?
                                           66

-------
Answer:  If a State does not take delegation of a Federal requirement and a source
subsequently comes into the State, the source is  till responsible for complying with the
applicable Federal  requirement.

Question:  This question is in regard to non part 70 sources for generic State risk-based
programs.  How can delegation be approved if a State does not want source-specific rules?
What will become  federally enforceable? The State rule?  (Brian Fitzgerald, Vermont)

Answer:  A State who wishes to gain  Federal enforceability of a generic State risk-based
program for sources not subject to part 70 may submit this program for approval under
section 63.94 of the subpart E rule.  If the program meets the criteria specified in 63.94,
then it becomes the applicable Federal requirement.
                                           67

-------
                             Section 112(g) Modifications
                                    Kathy Kaufman
                                       OAQPS
       There are two transition periods applicable to section  112(g) requirements.  The first
is between the effective date of a part 70 program approval and the promulgation of the
112(g) rule.  The second is between promulgation of the 112(g) rule and the effective date of
the State rule.  A source  must comply with the 112(g) requirements once the State's title V
program becomes effective.  Some States'  title V approval will beat the promulgation of the
112(g) rule which is scheduled for the summer of 1995. Transition period guidance is
needed because the  Act requires that 112(g) be implemented  by the effective date of a title V
program, regardless of the existence of a Federal 112(g) rule or guidance.  The EPA's
guidance is on MAPS on the TTN.

       The transition guidance includes mechanisms for States  to establish federally
enforceable  112(g) limits during the transition period.  In addition, it  provides OAQPS'
recommendations on resolving issues that will arise in  case-by-case MACT determinations
during each transition period.  To make limits federally enforceable during the  transition
period,  the EPA is  looking at three suggested mechanisms:

       1. Approval of State preconstruction permit programs to establish section 112(g)
       limits. Approval  can occur as part of the EPA rulemaking on a State's  part 70
       program.  Programs  must meet preconstruction public review requirements in 40 CFR
       51.160-166  for Federal enforceability.  Programs must  include a sunset  provision that
       lasts 12 months beyond Federal 112(g) rule promulgation.

       2. Approval of State preconstruction permit programs to establish section 112(g)
       limits under section 112(1) authority, where a State has  authority to write HAP limits
       in its existing program.  The sunset provision should  also apply to this option.

       3. Approval of State preconstruction permit program by "piggy backing "  on part 70
       permit process. This option is applicable only  in a few cases.  Under this option, a
       source can get approval for a modification,  but the timing has to be right.  The sunset
       provision should also apply to this option.

       4. A construction ban for a limited period of time could be an option in States where
       options 1-3 do not work.

       Regarding case-by-case MACT determinations during the transition period, the
transition guidance  included several recommendations:

       1. States should  take a flexible approach to case-by-case determinations, using the
       basis tenants of the proposed section 112(g) rule as guidance.


                                           68

-------
      2.  ^i;i es should  use le minimis values no nigher than found in the proposed rule.
      Lower values would also be acceptable.

      3.  Regarding offsets, States can use the 112(g) proposal as  guidance, but may impose
      more stringent offsetting conditions, if desired. The authority of section 112(g)
      cannot be used to prohibit offsets.

      4.  The EPA recommends that site  specific approvals not be revisited, since section
      112(g) is already an interim program.  Section 112(d) MACT standards will be out
      before too long.

      For the second transition period between the effective date of a State part 70 program
and promulgation os a State rule, State interim procedures should be established with a
memorandum of understanding with the Regional office and should satisfy the 112(g) rule.

      Reflecting on the length of transition period, Kaufman discussed the anticipated title V
approval dates nationwide.  By mid  1995,  most States will likely have title V approval.

      Kaufman gave an overview of the  112(g) process which would be applicable to
section 112 major sources  after approval of a  State's title V program.  New construction or
reconstructed sources must apply new source MACT. Modified sources, for which actual
emissions  increase above the de minimis level, must obtain offsets of more hazardous
pollutants  or install existing source MACT. The Act says that a modification is less than 10
tons of emissions.  There is a guidance document on section  112(g) case-by-case MACT
determinations on the TTN.  Software is available to  help with offsetting.

      The section 112(g)  rule was proposed on April 1, 1994.  The public comment period
ran from April  1 through June 30,  1994.  Work group closure is scheduled for late February,
and the  rule would go to the OMB in mid-March for  the 90-day review period.  The rule is
scheduled  to be promulgated in summer 1995.
                                          69

-------
                              Questions and Answers on
                              Section 112(g) Modifications

Question:  Is a source major if its potential to emit is above 10 tons, yet its actual emissions
are lower?  (Don Theiler, Wisconsin)

Answer: A source is a major source if its potential to emit is above 10 tons (or 25 tons of a
combination of pollutants).  If a major source makes a modification, 112(g) applies.  (Kathy
Kaufman)

Question:  What if a State has statutory requirements that do not allow offsets? (Adele
Cardenas, EPA Region VI)

Answer: States can abide by their State requirements regarding  offsets, but such
requirements are not  federally enforceable.  (Kathy Kaufman)

Question:  If a facility gets a federally enforceable limit on PTE (through a prohibitory rule
or synthetic minor provisions) and it wants to go above that limit yet not over the major
source threshold, what does the source have to do  for the new limit to be federally
enforceable and not a 112(g) modification? Does it have to go through the entire  federally
enforceable review process and  public comment?

Answer: If the  new  limit goes  above the level that would make the source a major source
based on its potential to emit, then the source would have to go through 112(g).  To keep
sources from being subject to 112(g)  when the PTE cap is changed, sources would have to
go through the federally enforceable review process and 45-day public review in order to
make the new  cap  federally enforceable.  [Do you want to add to this?]  (Kathy Kaufman)

Question:  Colorado must have rules in place to implement 112(g).  What does the EPA
recommend States  adopt for  112(g) rules?  An emergency rule?  (Sara Laumann, Colorado)

Answer: It is hard to  make a recommendation in  this case. Colorado could adopt the 112(g)
rule into the State code, or write a new rule.  (Kathy Kaufman)

Question:  Explain the sunset provision.

Answer: If a  title V permit program has been approved in the State and the State is
implementing  112(g) through its own preconstruction program,  a State has 12 months after
the 112(g)  rule is promulgated to  start implementing the 112(g) rule. During that  12 months,
a State can use its  own rules to  achieve 112(g) requirements.  (Kathy Kaufman)

Comment:  The interim period for 112(g) is very  important to States.  The delay in
promulgating a 112(g) rule should not shift a burden to the State, as will be the case  in
                                          70

-------
Colorado.  7 lit- EPA needs to accept primacy in the interim period it States c;:r,n."t enforce
112(g) provisions.

       States feel that their comments on the 112(g) rule were not considered and that the
EPA should have involved States earlier.  Also,  it should be noted that the effective date of a
title V program is not necessarily the same as the approval date.  (Bliss Higgins, Louisiana)

Response: The EPA acknowledges the problems that the States are raising.  At least one
industry group is  considering a suit against the EPA regarding the effective date of the
112(g) provisions.
                                           71

-------
                                   MACT Database
                                Susan Fairchild-Zapata
                                       OAQPS

       Several enhancements are underway for the MACT data base.  The data base is
supported by AIRS.  The enhancements are scheduled to be completed by during summer
1995 and training will then be conducted late FY-95 thru early FY-96.  Enhancements
include an SCC code list for those section 112 categories for which the EPA has not started
the data collection process. Sources will be identified by detailed SCC codes for all
processes.  This project should be completed in fall  1994 and user guidance completed by
December 1994.

       The EPA began on the MACT data base due to State interest in the implementation of
112(g) and 112(j) and the  need for assistance with case-by-case MACT determinations. The
data base is designed to pool, assimilate, and store available National data on similar
sources.  It would be useful for 112(g) and (j), but also 112(d). Reporting capabilities are
being designed to help users determine the 12 percent floor.

       AIRS was chosen to support the MACT data base, as use of an existing system and
data elements seemed to be the best choice over creating a new system. Most criteria
pollutant information is stored in the AIRS system, and in some cases, criteria pollutants can
be used as surrogates for HAPs.

       The EPA has conducted a pilot test using iron and steel foundries in 9 States.
Participants entered data to test if State contributions would be consistent with the
preliminary MACT floor developed by the EPA.  This pilot test showed that the concept of
"similar sources"  is not always clear cut, and States may not be submitting data using the
same  underlying assumptions.  The MACT floor determinations made using the data base
were  fairly consistent with the independent EPA determinations.

       More information on the MACT data base is available on the OAQPS TTN, under
  for AIRS and   for MACT Data.
                                          72

-------
                             Questions and Answers on the
                                   MACT Data Base

Question:  What level of State participation should be considered as adequate before a source
should use the MACT data base with a comfortable level of assurance that the floor has been
found?  Example:  Assume 100 sources in 10 States available.  Are 3 States and 50 sources
acceptable?  Is one State and five sources acceptable?  (Robert Buchanan, Texas)

Answer: Probably yes; probably no.

6 Things to Remember:

1) Case-by-case MACT is based  on available information.

2) Available information as we have defined it includes everything within the four walls of
the State office - in filing cabinets, information systems, any databases,  AIRS, etc.  Does not
include mandatory testing, although a State may decide to gather additional information as
needed.

3) There will be tools for the reviewer to use in determining the sufficiency of the data:

       (a)    Bibliography - This is just like the references section at the end of a
             publication, and provides information or documentation used for emission
             estimates.

       (b)    Emission Estimate Method Code - Method used to estimate emissions.

       (c)    Estimated No. of National Sources   Estimated number of sources in AIRS
             estimates.

             The closer this number approaches 0, the more complete  the database is.
                                          73

-------
                     Accidental Release Prevention - Section 112(r)
                              Craig Matthiessen, Director
                          Chemical Accident Prevention Staff

       The major components of the Act's accidental release provisions under 112(r) are a
general duty to prevent accidents and mitigate impacts, chemical safety and hazard
investigation board, the EPA  regulatory authorities to list substances and thresholds and
establish a risk management program, and other related provisions such as the OSHA process
safety management standard.

The basic tenants of the accidental release provisions are:

       •      prevention of accidents is an industry responsibility
       •      stakeholder (i.e., labor, first responders, public and States) involvement  is
              essential — dialogue and exchange are very valuable for solutions
       •      accidental release prevention must become an integral part of air toxics control
       •      prevention must also become an integral part of chemical emergency
              preparedness and response  at the State and local level

       The EPA promulgated the list of substances and the threshold rule, required under
section 112(r) in January 1994. The list included 77 toxics and 63  flammable and highly
explosive substances.  Sources need to be aware of these substances to prepare to implement
the rule.  Current issues include explosion hazards from flammables used as fuel, flammable
mixtures, and transportation.

       The risk management  program is required under section 112(r)(7)(B).   Sources need
to develop a risk management program and share it with the public. The source has two
roles in this effort, to prevent accidents and to communicate.  The three-part  risk
management program includes hazard assessment, prevention, and emergency response. In
the hazard assessment, sources identify the worst case  and significant releases, perform an
off-site consequence analysis, and develop a 5-year accident history.  The prevention
program builds on OSHA process safety management. Sources are required to prepare a
facility-specific risk management plan and submit it to the State, the Chemical Safety Board,
and local planning entities. The plan must be available to the public.  The EPA or the
implementing  agency  must perform  an audit and  review of the plan and program.

       The risk management  program rule was proposed in October 1993.  Four public
hearings followed at which nearly 150 people spoke.  This offered  a good exchange of ideas
among State and local agencies, the public, industry and environmental groups.  The
comment period closed February  1994 with about 1,000 comments received.   A supplemental
notice will be published in the spring of 1995 and promulgation is scheduled  for the spring of
1996.  The EPA plans to do  model  risk management plans.
                                           74

-------
       Some of the issues raised at the hearings inch aed technical oroblems with thv^
definition of worst case, information in the plan, "tiered"  approaches where requirements fit
the type of the source, the role of environmental impacts, and implementation issues such as
integration  of accident prevention with other programs.  Implementation issues will be the
topic for one of the interactive sessions.  The State role is an important implementation issue.
Accidental  release prevention must be part of the State air permit program, but title V may
not cover all 112(r) sources.  The EPA is looking at incentives here, such as grant funds
available to States.

       States will need to do several things to implement section 112(r). This includes
coordinating with the SERC, deciding who in  the State will manage the program, developing
resources (from title V permit fees, State-specific fees, future air grants), recruiting
expertise, reviewing risk management plans, and providing enforcement.  Permit fees must
cover the accident prevention program for part 70 sources.  In recruiting expertise, States
must identify staff knowledgeable in processes and in accidents.

       States should have a risk management program for the following reasons: States need
to be involved; the  Act requires risk management plans to be sent to the States;  the program
offers an opportunity to coordinate State programs for clean air, worker safety and
emergency preparedness and response; and it is unlawful for facilities to operate out of
compliance after the effective  date of section 112(r) applicability.  The State is the major
stakeholder and partner for pollution prevention, control of unanticipated emissions,  and
emergency preparedness.  The risk  management program can be linked  to 112(g) for
effective review of process modifications. Process modifications can be a real risk, and it is
important to assess  the process change for the potential for accidents.
                                           75

-------
                              Questions and Answers on
                    Accidental Release Prevention — Section 112(r)

Question:  Maine is not an OSHA agreement State, so the Federal OSHA does the
enforcement. What happens for those 112(r) facilities that are subject to title V and have a
permit? Maine can enforce if the facility does not comply with the permit, but Federal
OSHA wants to enforce, as well.

Answer: It is important to streamline and take away overlapping requirements and
responsibilities.  The EPA wants to work with OSHA so that there is no overlap in
enforcement at the State level.   The tiering suggestion will help in taking away the
requirement that says a source would have to do the OSHA process safety management for
the EPA if the source is already doing it for OSHA.

Question:  Does the EPA have  any definite plans in dealing with Federal OSHA on this
issue?  Both are Federal agencies, but have very different approaches to enforcement.

Answer: The EPA does plan to address this with Federal OSHA.

Question:  How many  accidental releases have occurred to date?  What have the impacts
been?  (Michael Scott,  Minnesota)

Answer: There have been several  large-scale accidents over the past 10 years, both world-
wide and in the U.S. In addition,  smaller releases seem to occur much more often and these
smaller events may be indications of a lack of attention and control by industry, which could
lead to a major catastrophe.  Although there have been no off-site deaths in the U.S.
associated with any toxic chemical  release or explosion, there have been many worker deaths
and injuries, off-site injuries, evacuations and environmental damages associated with such
events.  For example, in May, 3 workers were killed; 1,800 residents evacuated and drinking
water for thousands was affected after an explosion and  fire at a Shell Chemical facility in
Ohio.

Question:  What percent reduction in accidental releases do you anticipate based on this
program?   (Michael Scott, Minnesota)

Answer: No goal has been  set.  Ideally, all accidents can be prevented and the EPA would
like to see  industry have the same objective through continuous improvement.
                                          76

-------
                             Urban Area Source Program
                                      Tom Lahre
                                       OAQPS

Speaker: Tad Aburn, Maryland Department of the Environment
       By 1995, the EPA must issue a national strategy in a report to Congress, defining the
30 or more HAPs from the 112(b) list that present the greatest threat in the largest number of
urban areas.  The study must also identify area sources associated with these HAPs.  By the
year 2000, the EPA must implement a program to reduce cancer incidence by 75 percent,
and for each of those 30 HAPs, list  and set standards for emissions that account for 90
percent of each of the HAPs.  The EPA must do  periodic monitoring, modeling as
appropriate and periodic reports to Congress.

       In the last few years, the EPA has tried to pull together all of the existing information
that related to the Act requirements for urban air  toxics.  The Agency looked at all of the
screening studies, some ORD work, the Integrated Air Cancer Project, the Lake Michigan
Urban Toxics Study, TRIS, a State and local survey, national "top down" surveys of sources
and emissions, the Receptor Model Study Analysis (yet receptor models are not that
applicable in  studying HAPs),  the six-month study, the MACT data  base, the Houston-
Baltimore-Chicago urban studies, emission-modeling analysis (an update of the six-month
study), and ambient monitoring analysis of 25 to  30 cities.

       There are several limitations  in the current screening studies: limited health and
ecotox benchmarks, "porch potato" assumptions about human activity patters,  incomplete
emissions inventories, under representative monitoring data, weak knowledge of atmospheric
forms and transformation of HAPs,  and poor tools for estimating indirect exposures.

       The Act requirement for a national strategy and the  problems with available
information has put the EPA "between a rock and a hard place."  The Agency lacks
scientifically creditable data (ORD's work has not been conclusive on the 30 HAPs), and
faces diminishing resources, a  regulatory burden of full program implementation, and outside
pressure  to regulate area sources.
       Some of the probable urban area source HAPs are POM,  1,3-butadiene, chromium"1"6,
benzene, and formaldehyde. These  are likely based largely upon carcinogenicity.  Lahre also
present a list of 30 additional HAPs that are potential candidates for the UASP list.

       The UASP needs support in finding information on  source/emission data, exposure
and risk  data, and anecdotal data. Lahre asked, "give me the unusual."  The EPA has
considerable information on area sources such as  dry cleaners and degreasers,  but is looking
for sources that may be more easily  missed  (e.g., small waste oil conbustors.)
                                          77

-------
   Urban Air Toxics Program -- Baltimore's Ozone and Toxics Co-Control Experience
                                      Tad Aburn
                      Maryland Department of the Environment

       Baltimore's participation in the urban area source study helps to illustrate what
Maryland is doing in the area of program integration.

       Aburn listed some of the dates important to Maryland's air toxics program:

       1984         Maryland began working on an air toxics program

       1985-87      Baltimore Integrated Air Management Project began to look at the "big
                    picture" for toxics, including cancer  risks

       1986         National Air Toxics Strategy showed urban area  sources were very
                    important

       1988         Maryland adopted State air toxics regulations

       1990         First major deadline for Maryland rules

                    Clean Air Act was amended, focusing primarily  on stationary sources,
                    and only to a smaller extent on urban area sources

       Aburn presented information from the EPA's "Six-Month Study" on national
estimated potential cancer incidence from airborne pollutants to illustrate the importance of
the urban area source contribution:

       55 percent mobile sources
       30 percent urban area sources
       15 percent MACT

       Maryland had been trying to link its ozone program and air toxics program for some
time with some delays until being able to pick that effort back up with funding from the
EPA's urban area source mechanism.  Combining the urban area source work with the ozone
program makes sense because the ozone program in now focusing on smaller sources in
urban areas. Larger sources have generally been regulated.

       Maryland is setting up a toxics urban area source analysis system with some of the
money the EPA has supplied.  It is similar to ozone work  for a SIP and includes inventory,
modeling, monitoring, and a  system for comparing monitoring data with modeled data.  The
inventory includes point sources as well as area sources, mobile sources, off road mobile
sources,  small  stationary sources, etc. The system will allow the State to do some risk
reduction/benefit screening work, control strategy analysis, and "what if analyses.


                                          78

-------
       Witnin the next year, Mary.,.... a nopes to complete a  112(k) nv.ai siudy, using the
system to determine what the most important urban area pollutants are, and what benefits are
obtainable from certain control strategies being considered for ozone or toxics control
program.  Maryland also is looking at this program to help document or take credit for
toxics benefits associated with the VOC and NOX strategies being developed.

       Some of the benefits the program is beginning to show are that regulators are
beginning to address all concerns (toxics, VOCs, etc.) at once at a source, and toxics and
ozone inventories are  being related.  It is important, as options for controlling ozone become
more difficult, to maximize the benefits of control strategies.

       The  system can model  all sources together (area sources, stationary sources, mobile
sources), estimate relative exposure and risk reduction from control strategies, compare
modeled data with monitoring data, and establish pollutant priorities based on monitoring and
modeling.
                                           79

-------
                     INTERACTIVE SESSIONS REPORT OUT

Moderator: Bob Kellam, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

1.  MACT Partnerships
2.  Administrative Effort/Paperwork
3.  Case-by-Case  MACT
4.  Communications/Delegations
5.  Accidental Release Prevention Program
6.  Program Integration
                                       80

-------
                                 MACT Partnerships
                                     Robert Todd
                Texas Natural Resources and Conservation Commission

       The MACT partnerships group began by characterizing each of the types of MACT
partnerships.  First is the pre-MACT review of information.  This effort is short-term and
intensive. The availability of the EPA funding for this effort is in question. Second is the
adopt-a-MACT partnership which  involves one or a few States and begins after the pre-
MACT step.  The third types of partnership is the share-a-MACT,  which involves more
States, but still a fairly small number. This partnership also begins after the pre-MACT
step.

       This group also addressed the question of  why State and  local managers would want
to be involved in MACT partnerships.  The most common answer was that involvement
allows State and local agencies to  influence MACT rules in terms of stringency, certainty, to
ensure ease in implementation, and compliance methods. Participants felt that local industry
would benefit from certainty, as well. Several participants  viewed  partnerships as "Pay now
or pay more later."  Some agencies noted that they get involved anyway,  and the partnership
is not an extra effort.  One final reason was that managers in all government levels are being
asked to  streamline and reinvent.

       The group also discussed why State and local managers may be reluctant to participate
in MACT partnerships.  The most common answer was that air  toxics is lower priority than
title V/I  activities, and often resources are not available.  A few participants felt that there
was not a clear enough understanding, and that participating in a partnership does not fit  with
existing activities.  One participant expressed the  view that  MACT development is not a
State/local job, but rather an EPA job.  Other reasons mentioned were that new staff do not
have air  toxics experience, and  local  political influences will make  partnerships difficult.

       The group took a  poll concerning the "workability"  of the MACT partnership
program, comparing views of the  staff and their bosses.  The group felt fairly confident that
State and local agencies would participate in setting presumptive MACT and adopt-a-MACT
partnerships,  with Federal funds available.  However, the group felt that participation in  an
adopt-a-MACT partnership without Federal funds would be much less likely.  Overall, the
staff participants felt  more confident in the partnership programs than they anticipated their
bosses would.

       Regarding the share-a-MACT program, the group compared the views of the EPA
staff and State/local staff, and compared views of the staff participants with how they
anticipated their bosses would respond. Both the EPA and  States and local agencies
expressed confidence that the share-a-MACT program would work with Federal funding
available.  State participants  were almost equally  as confident that such partnerships would
work without Federal  funding, but noted that their bosses would not share this  opinion.  The
                                          81

-------
EPA staff members were less confident that the share-a-MACT process would be successful
without Federal funding.

      The group developed an action plan to complete prior to the next STAPPA/ALAPCO
meeting of air directors in October 1994. The goal of this action plan was the help "sell" the
partnership program the to air directors. The action plan consisted of five main points or
tasks that need to be addressed with the air directors: defining how air toxics fit in with
other priorities including the reasons for establishing MACT partnerships and the impact of
section 112, funding for MACT partnerships, development of a clear understanding of
MACT partnerships, presenting case examples of resources needed for adopt-a-MACT and
share-a-MACT, and development of a plan to get these projects underway.

      The group also developed the following outline of a model memorandum of
understanding:

I.     General
      A.    Purpose
             1.     What
             2.     How
             3.     Benefits
             4.     Objectives
      B.    Authority - General
             1.     State
             2.     EPA
      C.    Who is Committing
             1.     Organizations
             2.     People
      D.    Good Faith Effort Statement
             1.     Commitments
             2.     National Perspective
             3.     Disclaimer
       E.    EPA Authorities Retained (Inherently Governmental Business)
II.     Administrative Responsibilities
       A.    Overriding Commitment Statement
       B.    EPA's Contributions
              1.     Resources
             2.     Process orientation
             3.     Documentation
             4.     Communication
             5.     Section  114 authority
       C.    State contributions
              1.     Resources
                    Cor--.T.j;-.;catir  jutreach
             3.     STAPPA/ALAPCO interface


                                          82

-------
             4.     Documentation
                    a.     time and effort
                    b.     technical
                    c.     information collection
                    d.     maintain public and CBI records
III.    Project Direction - Attach Work Plan
       A.    EPA
              1.     Tasks
             2.     Deadlines
             3.     Concurrences
                    a.     interim
                    b.     final
             4.     Notifications
             5.     Administrative responsibilities
                    a.     accounting
                    b.     CBI
                    c.     internal workgroup
       B.    States
       In conclusion, Todd noted that the group members were "cautiously optimistic" about
the success of MACT partnerships.  The main obstacle is competing priorities for limited
resources.
                                           83

-------
                           Administrative Effort/Paperwork
                                      Tim Smith
                     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

    The purpose of this group was to follow up on some suggestions made at the December
meeting in Greensboro.  This group discussed general principles and goals for recordkeeping,
reporting, and monitoring; two case examples on PTE; and follow up activities.

    In the discussion recordkeeping, the group discussed examples of why recordkeeping is
important and examples of where  recordkeeping might be excessive.  Examples included
cases where there was no reporting and noncompliance lasted a long time - until a site visit
or compliance test.  Reports could have shown this sooner.  A State concern was that
recordkeeping and reporting seemed to be aimed at covering State or local agency shortfalls
rather getting at the real need.  One theme of the discussion became a trust and partnership
issue.

   The group discussed the issue of whether 100 percent compliance was the way to achieve
environmental results, or if the resources spent to get to 100 percent from 98 or 99 percent
might be better allocated.  The group suggested using resources  to foster voluntary
compliance with up front training and outreach may be a better goal than trying to use
records and  reporting to achieve the 100 percent level.  There is a trade off between
resources spent for outreach and resources spent for reviewing reports.  The group also
discussed tiering based on size, proximity to the standard, proximity to exposed population,
and actual emissions.  Environmental results depend on what is emitted more than how many
people comply with recordkeeping and reporting.

    There are political  and practical problems to requiring too many reports and records,
especially because small business concerns are heard by decision makers.  One EPA
representative noted that the EPA's "common sense" initiative may indicate the Agency's
desire to reduce the reporting and recordkeeping burden.

   The group made several observations concerning reports.  A  large program with an active
inspection program may be able to do with less reporting, as there would be little value
added for a  source to report soon  after an inspector's visit.  Continued reporting should be
reduced depending on the probability of continued violations.  The EPA should promote
electronic communication of reports and electronic oversight where possible.  Electronic
reporting could also facilitate public review as well.  Some group members expressed
concern over punishing self-reported violations. This discourages effective communication
on what  must be done to comply.

    The group also made several observations concerning records.  The frequency of
measurement should  be dictated by the variability of the process.  One specific issue
regarding the halogenated solvent cleaning standard was whether the source had to measure
freeboard every time or if a line could simply be drawn on the tank.  Such examples


                                           84

-------
illustrated tnat some records may not be necessary at all times.  Regarding the 5 year
retention issue, the group felt that the time period should depend on whether someone was
likely to act on those records sooner than 5 years.  If so, there is less need to retain the
records  for 5 years.

   Regarding program integration, the group noted that section  112 reports must make sense
in tandem with part 70 reports. Related to  112(1) approval of State programs, the group
noted that it is impossible for an agency to demonstrate that practical implementation will
achieve  the same emission results with fewer reports and records.

   The  group discussed two case examples on limiting  PTE. The first was where material
usage equaled emissions (e.g., a paint spray booth).  The second example involved control
equipment.  The group looked at ways to streamline limiting PTE,  concluding that having
every source similar to the  first example go through an individual process was not a wise use
of resources.  In the second example, certain things must happen to make sure the device is
operated and maintained properly.  As the Agency streamlines certain cases,  it must not lose
sight of the fact that there are many instances where monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
are critical.

   The  group encouraged some organized follow up with regard to these issues. There
should be a team approach  to address these issues as a whole rather than on a standard-by-
standard basis.  There was  support for getting source category-specific guidance on PTE
calculations.  Another issue the group did not discuss at length,  but wanted to follow up on
was the once major, always major question.  One other follow up issue was the suggestion
that the EPA visit certain sources that States would like to use to illustrate some specific
concerns. The group  suggested that issues be communicated via the TTN.
                                           85

-------
                            Questions and Answers on the
                  Administrative Effort/Paperwork Interactive Session

Comment:  Theiler expressed concern over States worrying about self-reporting of
violations.  He felt that agencies need to be moving toward more self-reporting.  Inherent in
this is taking enforcement action on reported violations.  There are now criminal penalties
for false reporting. This fear may be overblown.  (Don Theiler)

Response: The concern  here was that self-reporting of violations might discourage a source
from seeking help in complying.  (Tim Smith)
                                           86

-------
                                 Case-by-Case MACT
                                     Susan Fields
                    Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality

       This group divided into three  subgroups which discussed data issues, resource issues,
and policy  issues.  Training issues were also a concern in all of the subgroups.

   Regarding data issues, the subgroup concluded that the EPA, States and industry must
support the MACT data base.  In supporting the data base, the EPA must commit adequate
resources.  Regions must not approve title V submittals that do not assure and commit to
hardware, software, staff,  and training needed to submit quality data in  a timely manner.
States must assign personnel, purchase hardware and software,  commit to making timely
submittals, and review applications critically with  regard to necessary data.  The MACT data
base must be expanded to identify key contacts and phone numbers.

   The subgroup on resource issues pointed out that the  EPA needs to recognize that floors
are not "doable" during the transition.  Regions need to participate early in the  process as
partners in the case-by-case MACT process.   States must assist smaller sources  and share
information on case-by-case MACT.   The EPA needs to develop more specific  and definitive
guidance on grandfathering, limiting  PTE before the rule, and a step-by-step process for
determining case-by-case MACT. Two needs of smaller States and small sources are
training (e.g., APTI)  and checklists.   The subgroup also suggested a step-by-step guide  to  the
interim program.

   The policy subgroup identified four issues. First, the EPA  needs to  clarify how
presumptive MACT will be established and its legal  standing.  Second,  the group opposed
excluding contemporaneous increases from the offset showing.  Third, the group suggested
that the EPA clarify the application of transfer technology in 112(g) case-by-case MACT
determinations.  Finally, the group suggested that the EPA issue interim PTE guidance.

   Training was a theme mentioned  in all three subgroups.  Three topics were suggested for
APTI workshops: an overview of procedures, a case study  of the case-by-case MACT
process for new versus modified sources, and offset  procedures and documentation.  Three
topics were suggested for checklists and/or manuals: applicability, sample applications, and
data entry. The final training suggestion was a  "traveling data base show."
                                           87

-------
                            Questions and Answers on the
                        Case-by-Case MACT Interactive Session

Question:  How did the case-by-case MACT data base training go at this workshop? Users
seem to be giving mixed  signals about the data base.  (Bruce Jordan)

Answer:  The presentation gave people confidence in using the system.  The confidence that
is lacking is that unless there is pressure on States, the case-by-case MACT information will
not be submitted and will not be there for other States.  (Susan Fields)

Question:  How can the  EPA get States to put information in the case-by-case data base?
(Lydia Wegman)

Answer:  Regional  Offices should be unwilling to approve title V submittals unless the
submittals include a firm commitment to support the data  base.  This includes resources and
scheduling.  Withholding section 105 grant money would  be another possibility.  (Susan
Fields)

   Don Theiler posed the question of whether the EPA would be willing to withhold 105
grant money.  Lydia Wegman added that this same issue comes up in  regard to the
BACT/LAER clearinghouse.

       Susan Fields asked the workshop participants how  many States are willing to let their
105 grant money be tied  to participation in the MACT data base with  all readily  available
information? Participants were not able to respond.  Region II pointed out that the MACT
data base is one small objective and they could not withhold all the 105  money over this
issue.

       A participant from Utah noted that there are so many requirements that the State must
do that it would not be fair to link data base participation  to approval.  The information
needs to be in the data base, but it should be tied to approval.

-------
                      COMMUNICATION AND DELEGATION
                                    Sheila Milliken
                     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

       This group discussed several items such as improving the work group process,
developing some type of communication strategy, what that strategy should look like, the
State rule adoption processes with regard to delegation, what States have to do get ready to
adopt rules as promulgated, the role of memoranda of understanding in the delegation
process, ways to improve the delegation process, and the EPA resources  as they relate to
communication and delegation.  The discussion was presented by three group members who
focused on communication strategy,  implementation strategy, and delegation process/policy
issues, respectively.
                                           89

-------
            Communications/Delegations Interactive Sessions, Subgroup #4
                         Facilitator:  Chris Hall, EPA Region X

    Our group met to discuss Memorandums of Understanding (aka MOU's, Implementation
Agreements, lA's, Memorandums of Agreements, and MOA's) as well as other issues.
Following are the issues which we believed needed to be addresses to improve
communications, delegations and implementation for all agencies involved.

Problem:  There is a need for better quantification of the number of MACT affected facilities
within an air agencies jurisdiction. The lack of quantification will inhibit the section 1120)
delegation process since the S/L's will be unable to assure the EPA that they have the
resources to properly implement, enforce and assure source compliance if they do not know
the number of sources subject to the MACT standard.

Solution:  Early  source identification within the MACT standard development process.
Section  114 info requests can be used to gather  source information from trade associations,
suppliers,  etcetera at the onset of rule development.

WHO                     HOW IS THIS INFO           WHEN
MACT lead, regional         MACT summary table          upon WG formation

Problem:  A possible lack of equity between the regions regarding requirements within
Implementation Agreements.

Solution:  Improve communication between S/L's.

HQ                       Provides a forum               ASAP
S/L's                      communicate IA                As IA are drafted

Problem:  Lack of resources during MACT transition period and the need for continued
assistance after delegation.

Solution:  Provide  105  funding for non-title 5 activities and commit to  provide  technical and
enforcement assistance  after delegation.

HQ, regions                earmark 105 funds            during annual igrant
HQ, regions                commit to and                continuing

Problem:  Inadequate communication between S/L's.

Solution:  Increase overall knowledge of existing communication channels available to the
S/L's.

STAPPA/ALAPCO, HA     Expand access to               ASAP

                                         90

-------
                               Communication Strategy
                                     Joann Held
                 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

      The problem discussed by the group was that successful implementation requires good
communication from the initial scoping  strategy through promulgation and implementation.
The solution that the group developed was a table outlining a communication strategy for
MACT standard development and implementation for traditional rule development.  Similar
tables need to be developed  for the streamlined process, adopt-a-MACT process, and the
share-a-MACT process.  The table should be widely distributed, including insertion in the
OAQPS rule development manual so the MACT leads can follow it. All State, Local and
Regional toxics contacts, as  well as every work group member should also have the table.

      An important part of the communication strategy is the  MACT summary table. If the
MACT summary table were added to the fact sheet, it would get wide spread dissemination.
       Another important part of the communication strategy is the monthly
STAPPA/ALAPCO conference call.  State and local agencies should participate in these
calls.

       The communication strategy also calls for the development of a MACT
implementation strategy during the period between MACT proposal and MACT
implementation.
                                          91

-------
                                Implementation Strategy
                                    Anthony Toney
                                    EPA Region IV

       The implementation strategy encompasses all of the resources necessary for the
delegation and implementation process.  Early involvement is a key in the implementation
strategy. Representatives from State and local agencies, the EPA Regions and the EPA
headquarters should be involved in the scoping process for the MACT standards.  This will
help identify resources and needs.  Source identification, which is likely to be a problem,
will be improved with wide involvement early in the scoping process.  Connecticut has
developed a source identification process and  will be working with the EPA to improve
source identification procedures.

       The group also recommended an impact analysis to determine  the impact a MACT
standard will have on State and local agencies so that they can plan to meet the
implementation needs. The group supported a resource analysis addressing when  and how
implementation must be done.  Wide distribution of this information will help speed up
implementation.

       The group identified several types of policy guidance to assist  States in training and
implementation.  This included an inspection  checklist and an enforcement checklist.  These
items would be based on information the EPA has at the time a MACT standard is
developed.  The group also recommended a monitoring and modeling example, addressing
special procedures for toxics.

       Additional implementation resources the group recommended were continued section
105 funding, support  for the BBS/NATICH, training, and outreach to sources.  Section 105
funds are necessary to handle requirements that are not covered by the title V fees. The
EPA needs to enhance NATICH, giving it new direction, yet keeping  the contact
information, and standard operating procedures for source identification.  Specific training is
necessary, especially with regard to inspections.  Outreach efforts need to be enhanced to
keep sources and States fully informed once the MACT standards are promulgated.

       Given that OAQPS is faced with a limited budget for training,  this group felt that it is
important to utilize cost effective training. OAQPS has started to use satellite training as a
method to train both Regions and States on MACT standards. Satellite training can be an
useful and cost effective way to train State and Regional personnel.

       The group recommended that the training should be more "hands on," and include
actual  footage from facilities.  Some examples of satellite training that have shown actual
facilities and regulated equipment include drycleaning and a surface coating operation.  It is
important to actually show the regulators what parts of the facility are being covered.  Many
of the  regulators  do not have field experience and it helps to see what the regulation is
actually covering in the standard.  (For example,  a drycleaning machine, a spray  booth, an


                                           92

-------
air spray gun, a digester)  OAQPS should spend more resources producing a quality video
that uses footage from the facility rather than just having the EPA personnel read from
overheads.

       If the satellite videos are well made, then Regions and States can use them during
outreach workshops for  industry. The satellite video can become a training resource for
Regions and States.  Another recommendation is that all Regions, States and local agencies
should receive a copy of training videos.  Each Region, State and local agency may want to
have one person who is  responsible for receiving and  storing all training videos to facilitate
use of this "training library."  The group concluded that it is important for OAQPS to
prepare quality training.  However, it is equally important that Regions, States, and local
agencies are aware of the training material available as well as have access to the training
material.

       The implementation strategy is important to ensure that resources are placed  where
they need to be for successful  implementation.
                                           93

-------
                                  Delegation Issues
                                    Bob Fletcher
                           California  Air Resources Board

      The group identified two delegation issues. The first was that approvals are
dependent on the EPA policy concerning  minimum compliance and enforcement provisions.
State and local agencies may submit rules with different compliance and enforcement
provisions that are based on other rule or program provisions.  The group recommended that
OAQPS, OGC, OECA, and other EPA offices develop policy guidance with input from
STAPPA/ALAPCO as early as possible.  The OAQPS should take the lead on this.

      The second issue was that there is no defined process for resolving issues prior to the
formal 112(1) submittal.  Timely resolution  of issues will expedite the formal approval
process.  OAQPS should take the lead in  developing an informal process for resolving issues
arising during pre-submittal phase.
                                          94

-------
                           Questions and Answers on the
                  Communication and Delegation Interactive Session

Question:  Did the group feel that there should or should not be minimum compliance and
enforcement requirements?  (Lydia Wegman)

Answer: The group favored having the flexibility to take into consideration all of the parts
of State rules. In total, a State rule should be compared to the compliance and enforcement
requirements of the MACT  standard.  This would  mean that States and the EPA would not
be dealing with a set of minimum compliance and  enforcement standards. (Bob Fletcher)

Question:  Is the table that  is now included in MACT standards what the group had in mind?
(Bruce Jordan)

Answer: Yes, it is the same table. Some fine tuning might be desirable.
                                          95

-------
                        Accidental Release Prevention Program
                                     Bob Mahoney
                      South Carolina Department of Health and
                              Environmental Conservation

       The goal of the 112(r) accidental release prevention program is to prevent accidents
and injury to human health or the environment. This group discussed liability, resources,
program development, developing expertise, and communications. These are issues the EPA
is will be covering in  the supplemental rule to the  112(r) rule.

       With regard to liability,  the group noted that the Act states that liability will not be
placed on the States, and thus questioned whether  State concerns over liability are real or
perceived.  The group raised the question of whether State acceptance of risk management
plans implies approval of the plan.  State and  local agencies would like to have a letter
stating that they are not liable.  They feel that this issue needs to  be elevated within the EPA,
as State and local agencies are very concerned.

       With regard to resources, there are still questions since the scope of the accidental
release prevention program is still somewhat unknown.  The funding mechanism for part 70
sources is clear, but a funding mechanism for non-part 70 sources is needed.  The  group
mentioned long-term section 105 grant funds,  and  sought clarification on whether such  funds
could be transferred to a non-air agency. The  group suggested using the existing program
structure for site evaluations.

       With regard to program  development, the group noted that there will be delegation
issues if the implementing agency is not the air agency.  Such delegation will require
measures such as a memoranda of agreement between agencies and notification of the EPA
Regional Office.
       The group listed several needs to develop expertise  for this program.  These include
methods and  models, and the EPA guidance for States, implementing agencies, and sources.
There are some useful training packages available  currently such as the OSHA Process  Safety
Management Training. Expertise also needs to be developed in risk communication and
review of risk management plans and hazard analyses.

       With regard to communication,  the group noted the need to communicate the risks
from plants.  Communication among OSHA staff,  SERCs, LEPCs, and the air agency will
be important, as will communication between  the EPA Regional Offices and State and local
agencies.
                                           96

-------
                            Questions and Answers on the
               Accidental Release Prevention Program  Interactive Session

Question:  Is the supplemental notice in response to comments on the initial rulemaking?
(Don Theiler)

Answer:  Some of it is in response to comments, and some of it is where the EPA realized
topics were not addressed.  For instance, there were responsibilities linking 112(r) and part
70 that were not addressed in the proposed rule.  (Craig Matthiessen)

Question:  Does the EPA have a work group including State and local agency members for
these rules? States should be involved in this process. (Don Theiler)

Answer:  There is an EPA work group with Regional representation. The Regions are
included to bring forward State concerns.  There  are no States or local agencies on the work
group.  (Craig  Matthiessen)
                                           97

-------
                             PROGRAM INTEGRATION
                                   Regina Spindler
                                    EPA Region IX

       This group's discussion focused on three areas relating to program integration:
potential to emit, redundant and overlapping requirements, and  the title V/section 112
interface. Different speakers present the discussion for each area.  Spindler noted that, the
groups discussing potential to emit and redundant requirements  did not reach consensus. For
the potential to emit discussion, the recommendations largely reflect State recommendations.
                                           98

-------
                                   Potential to Emit
                                    Karen Granata
                                     City of Toledo

       States need a way to address the existing, currently permitted, small sources, before
the title V permit applications questionnaires are due.  The group identified the following key
State concerns regarding potential to emit:

1.  Permitting authorities need a way to limit small sources'  PTE before application deadlines
for title V.

2.  State resources for regulating small sources are very limited.

3.  States need short-term and long-term solutions.

       The group suggested that the  EPA consider allowing  relaxation of requirements for
some interim period until long-term mechanisms for limiting PTE that meet the EPA
requirements are in place. The group suggested,  for example, that the EPA allow State
permits that meet all criteria for Federal enforceability except public notice to be considered
Federally enforceable.  The group also suggested that the EPA allow State enforceable limits
to limit PTE for the interim period.

       In addition to the interim solutions,  the group suggested, although did not all agree
on, that the EPA consider these  permanent  steps for limiting PTE:

1.  Quickly develop prohibitory  rules for common small sources  (e.g., coating operations,
paint spray booths, dry cleaners), and consider de minimis exemption levels.

2. Develop prohibitory rules by  source category  within MACT standards.

3.  Establish a set of reasonable assumptions to use in calculating PTE for various types of
sources.  Some sources do not operate  all year or at night, for instance.

4.  Establish a "tiering" system, allowing criteria for  Federal enforceability to  vary with
source size.  Small sources  may need record keeping, but not need public comment.
Intermediate sources may need some monitoring and reporting system.

5.  Create general permits under SIP-approved programs.  There was only limited discussion
of this point.

       The conclusion of this  discussion was that it is important  to use State and local agency
resources as wisely as possible and not waste time on sources that are well controlled and
well documented by current programs.
                                           99

-------
                      Redundant and Overlapping Requirements
                                    Dick Everhart
                              Jefferson County Kentucky

      This group identified several areas of conflict, mostly dealing with reporting,
recordkeeping and testing, rather than actual emission requirements.  The group discussed
three main questions:

1.  How do we address existing redundant/overlapping requirements?

2.  How do we minimize redundancy or overlap in future MACT standards and other
regulations?

3.  How do we resolve conflicts between differing Federal regulations and differing Federal
vs. State/local regulations?

      Examples of existing overlapping and redundant requirements that the group listed
were:

1.  NSPS - 3 day averaging period 95 percent  level of control
CTG - 1 day averaging period 90 percent level of control

2.  Modification to comply with HON triggers NSR (with offsets required) where no offsets
are available

3.  Several potential conflicts  exist between the HON and NSPS, RCRA, NESHAPs

4.  Under the pulp and paper  MACT, increases in SO2 emissions,  trigger NSR review.

5.  In general, overlapping/redundant monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
are the most common.

      The group made several recommendations to the EPA for resolving existing
redundancies, based upon what they referred to as a "common sense" initiative:

1.  Recognize State discretion during the permit  issuance process to consolidate applicable
requirements that are not expressed in the same form.

2.  Establish information sharing techniques such as a data clearinghouse for decisions that
have been made.

3.  Develop a mechanism for  conflict resolution  between Regional Offices and State/local
agencies.
                                          100

-------
4. Issue national guidance (with high level of Regional/State/local input) on criteria for
resolving specific types of redundancies.

       With an eye toward avoiding future redundancies in future standards, the group
recommended that the EPA resolve redundancies up-front as MACT standards are
promulgated, addressing redundancies in  the standard itself.  State and local agencies should
take responsibility for pointing out redundancies and suggesting resolution during the
comment period.
                                           101

-------
                              Title V/Section 112 Interface
                                      Mike Trutna
                     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

       This group was composed of eight EPA representatives, 17 States agency
representatives, and five local agency representatives.  Three three main topics discussed
were the acceptability of the recently proposed system for incorporating MACT standards in
title V permits, permitting of area sources, and identification and prioritization of additional
interface concerns.

       Regarding the MACT incorporation proposal, the group had a favorable response
overall.  The proposed system is a two-step process.  Under section 502(b)(a), title V
permits must be reopened  if the permit has more than 3 years left. This process and the
subsequent reissuance of the permit must be completed within  18 months.  The group felt
that first step could be done administratively.  Step 2 would consistent of a subsequent permit
revision which would occur after the compliance details are available after performance
testing. The group felt that 18 months was sufficient time to accomplish  an administrative
revision, including acquiring any necessary additional legal authority.  The group suggested
modifying  the General Provisions to require sources to send at least initial notifications by
source to States, and to require initial notifications to contain "compliance schedule"
milestones  in a format that could be attached as an administrative amendment to the permit.

       The group asked that EPA clarify the use of cross referencing so as to minimize  the
size of title V permits.  The group registered a concern  that as MACT standards are
incorporated into permits, they may be superseding existing State T-BACT programs that
may have been approved under section 112(1).

       The second main topic addressed by this group was the permitting of area  sources.  In
particular,  the group discussed  the criteria for EPA to consider in deciding whether to
exempt area sources.  There was a willingness on the part of State and local agencies to
permit such sources, but resources were an important consideration in limiting the decision  to
do so.  Small sources are  costly to inspect and educate,  even if general permits are used.
The group  listed these criteria for exempting area sources:

       • No field presence needed (can get to manufacturers) for  surveillance (e.g., wood
       stoves)
       • Short duration (e.g.,  asbestos demo reno)
       • Economic or statutory incentives otherwise exist (e.g., OSHA)
       • Cost to States or sources is not a criterion

       The group looked for the future  EPA rulemaking which would identify and make
these criteria decisions on existing standards to also:

       • Require State fee schedule adjustments (e.g.,  minimum administrative fee)


                                           102

-------
       •  Note "exemptions" are good candidates for section 105 funding
       •  Take comment on whether a lessor permit issuance process and lessor permit
       content would be appropriate for isolated area sources (e.g., only annual reporting)
       •  Clarify general permitting issues (e.g., renewal)
       •  Consider rule revision to allow general permits addressing only MACT obligations
       of isolated area sources
       •  If it occurs soon, consider continued deferral of existing NSPS which are not also
       HAP emitters

       The third topic  that this group discussed was the identification and prioritization of
additional interface concerns.  These included:

       •  Section 112(g) transition  issues and  applicability tracking to determine if source
       changes did or did not trigger 112(g).

       •  Complete application guidance for HAPs  for which the source is not regulated.
       The group expressed concern over the  technical basis for estimates, the use  of de
       minimis or trace amounts, identification of insignificant  activities and liability to
       source owners when they sign permits.

       •  Interface training for permit engineers

       •  Potential to emit.  The group suggested separating sources into those that (1) could
       avoid filing a part 70 application by do reporting and certification  "small actuals"
       (retroactive enforcement if actuals  ever rose above the potential  emissions level that
       would trigger the need for a permit) and  (2) must file a part 70  application  when
       actual emissions of a pollutant are  likely  to exceed 75% of the major thresholds.
       [The part 70 permit would be subsequently issued if the permitting authority does not
       otherwise permit the potential  to emit of  the source in a federally enforceable fashion
       prior to the date of required part 70 permit issuance.
                                           103

-------
                            Questions and Answers on the
                        Program Integration Interactive Session

Question:  What is the concern over undercutting the T-BACT?  (Lydia Wegman, OAQPS)

Answer: Some States want section 112 endorsement of their air toxics programs developed
in the 1980s and based  on T-BACT. These States expect to put their air toxics T-BACT
requirements in their title V permits.  Some States are fearful that earlier State decisions will
be superseded and undercut when MACT standards come out that address the same sources
these States addressed earlier in their T-BACT program.  These States want EPA to
recognize a transitional situation where the  T-BACT could meet the MACT standard at least
initially.  (Mike Trutna)

       Don Theiler suggested that perhaps  this could be addressed on a case-by-case basis
through the  112(1) process.

Question:  How long would the interim period be for which the group made the
recommendation to relax  requirements for limiting the PTE? (Lydia Wegman)

Answer: The interim period would last through the first  round of permits, in order to
reduce the work load on permitting agencies.  The group  would like to avoid having sources
submitting applications for permits  they know will never be used.  (Karen Granata)

Question:  Would EPA do the prohibitory  rules, rather than the rules being done by each
State?  (Lydia Wegman)

Answer: EPA could do one set of rules that  would be federally enforceable. This would be
the best use of resources. One concern  is that EPA has looked at State programs in the past
that States felt were enforceable,  but now they are being told that these programs are not
enforceable.

Questions:  Explain the prohibitory rule.  What  would it mean for dry cleaners?

Answer: Using the example of paint spray booths,  if a facility uses less than 20 gallons of
paint per year, and keeps records on a monthly basis to show that it stayed below a de
minimis level, then it would be exempt from  the MACT standard. The de minimis level
would  be set at a level  where the source would not be a title V source,  no matter what the
PTE is.  (Karen Granata)
                                          104

-------
                                      Appendices

       The following appendices contain information provided by the facilitators from some
of the interactive sessions:

Appendix A:  MACT Partnerships
Appendix B:  Administrative Effort and Paperwork
Appendix C:  Communication and Delegations
Appendix D:  Accidental Release Prevention Program

-------
   Appendix A
MACT Partnerships
       A-l

-------
                         Roles and Responsibilities Matrix
                   for Partners in the MACT Partnership Process
      The attached roles and responsibilities matrix (in flow chart form) was presented
to the Partnership Session for discussion on the initial process of Presumptive MACT,
Adopt-a-MACT and Share-a-MACT. Participants were asked during the presentation
and discussions to identify what questions or supporting guidance would be necessary as
they viewed the process, and indicate their comments.  The interactive session produced
many comments  with regard to the Presumptive MACT process, do in part to the truly
joint effort to arrive at a possible beginning for MACT.  It is also believed that effort in
Presumptive MACT results in a beneficial partnership outcome at the least cost
compared to the follow up programs which  do require higher commitments on behalf of
the State/local partner.  The comments and suggestions are compiled on the matrix
table. We request and encourage continued State and local  involvement in addressing
and expanding on this chart and the comments.   Some comments have been initially
addressed and we would like participants to step forward in our effort to address the
rest.  For more information and  assistance support,  please contact either Fred Dimmick
at (919) 541-5625 or Tony Wayne at (919) 541-5439.

-------
                                                                                                   Draft 9/07/94
                                                        Roles and Responsibilities Matrix
                                                for Partners in  the MACT Partnership  Process
 MACT Partnership Procass
      (optional process)
 EPA Headquarters
EPA Regional
   Offices
Stataa & Local*
   (S/LI and
   STAPPA/
ALAPCO (S/AI
 Industry or
Enviro Group*
COMMENTS FROM AIR TOXIC WORKSHOP
         PreMACT
                                                                                                     Initial Comments prior to Steps:

                                                                                                     1. A strong NSR Program needs to do Pre-MACT.
                                                                                                     ..Consistency with CBC, 112(j( Problems, Inconsistency with
                                                                                                     MACT.

                                                                                                     2. Concerns over small versus large S/L agencies.

                                                                                                     3. Is Pe MACT Process the same for Adopt and Share A
                                                                                                     MACT?

                                                                                                     4. Resources. What does this process do to ESD/OAQPS
                                                                                                     level of effort. (Basically thta la hi response to the hrts In our
                                                                                                     level of effort support)

                                                                                                     5. In order to sell to the State/Local Air Directors, you need
                                                                                                     (o emphasize that there are: Potentially dollars from EPA, the
                                                                                                     "hammer" will fall,  going to do it anyway., we would rather
                                                                                                     have a "partnership*, influence the final decisions straight
                                                                                                     awny.
Assign EPA Team
Make ESD staff
assignments
                                                                           Page 1

-------
  MACT Partnership Process
      (optional process]
  EPA Headquarters
EPA Regional
   Offices
State* & Local*
   (S/LI and
   STAPPA/
ALAPCO IS/A)
 Industry or
Enviro Groups
                                                            COMMENTS FROM AIR TOXIC WORKSHOP
 Preliminary Data Investigation
Initial info gathering
on source category
                                                     Develop and outline Process:

                                                    1.  What guidance will be provided? A work book, and wr at
                                                    would be the contents?

                                                    2.  Can this be done by the S/L partner?
Notify ROs, S/A, Industry and
Enviros of intent to Pre-MACT
Send letters to S/A,
RO Air Dir, Trade
Assoc, and Enviros
               S/A sends
               message vin
               SLAD
                  Trade ABSOC
                  notify
                  constituents
                1.  Why send out letters to the Industry at this time? (This is
                In order to alert them and solicit any information that they
                may have under a short time frame.I

                2.  Will this develop support for the States?

                3.  What  about the EPA Regional Offices?

                4.  What  kind of outreach is necessary?

                5.  Need  to identify upfront the State Players and Id effort for
                the affected plants.
Partnership Team Formed
                                                                            S/L Outline commitment:

                                                                           1.  States need to clarify who are the major state/local
                                                                           participants and leads.

                                                                            Team Formed:

                                                                           1.  What is truly needed here?

                                                                           2.  What level of funding and what items will be funded for
                                                                           the States by EPA?
                                                                               Page 2

-------
MACT Partnership Process
(optional process)
Identify Add'! Team Member*
from Interacted Partlea



Pre MACT Kick-off Meeting

EPA Headquarters
Oat verbal
commitment for Pre-
MACT from all
partnera



Coordinate

EPA Regional
Offlcaa
Notify EPA
HQ of Interest



Attend

State* & Locale
(8/LI and
STAPPA/
ALAPCO (S/A)
States notify S/A
S/A suggests
members to EPA



Attend

Industry or
Envlro Group*
Notify EPA
HQ of interest



Possibly
attend & meet
later as
requested (ad
hoc)

COMMENTS FROM AIR TOXIC WORKSHOP
1 . Consult the Great Water* Mailing list for contacts.
2. Tell Industries In the letters up front how It can benefit
them.
3. Can we tap into Industry Information sources In a more
significant way without tripping an alarm at OMB? I Ye*. II
the information that they aand b voluntary. Soma states
have done this electronically already.)
4. Can the use of section 114 orders be a tool?
5. Again the issue of CBI needs to be addressed.
1 . The EPA and STAte leads develop source category
specific action plan. Rationales.
2. Establish Weekly conference calls on Pre-MACT with eh
team.
3. If an Adopt a MACT from thla point on the State would
have the responsrblity lor scheduling all Pre MACT Meetings.
Page 3

-------
MACT Partnership Process
(optional process)


Gather Information












Distribute Information

EPA Headquarters



Get Agency data
(OSW, OW, etc.,
MACT database);
set up docket









Copy info and distrib
to co-regulators
EPA Regional
Offices


Get info as
agreed.
submit to
EPA HQ











Stalas & Locals
(S/LI and
STAPPA/
ALAPCO (S/A)
Get info ae
agreed, such as
permit dote,
submit to EPA-
HQ










Industry or
Envtro Groups


Supply info as
agreed.
submit to
EPA HQ











COMMENTS FROM AIR TOXIC WORKSHOP



Literature and Other State Searches:

1 . Include other Region or offices in the information search.

2. How can the MACT Database be used in the data
development stage?
3. Give some thoughts on how the MACT Database effort
can help you to communicate this.
4. Include the regions for relevant source categories. States
to obtain additional data.
5. Include a search with the Great Waters Program office
and the offices of the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay
operations.


Pago 4

-------
MACT Partnership Proceaa
(optional process)
Asses* Data Quality Meeting
and Develop Strategy to Fill
Gape















EPA Headquarter*
Coordinate meeting
of Co-regulators to
review info, assess
ite quality, and
identify additional
data collection
needs











EPA Regional
Office*
Review info
and attend
meeting















State* & Local*
(S/l) and
STAPPA/
ALAPCO (S/AI
Review info and
attend meeting
















Industry or
Enviro Group*


















COMMENTS FROM AIR TOXIC WORKSHOP
Coordinate with Selected Offices:

1 . What is the level of coordination necessery between the
states and EPA?

2. Lawyers may often slow the work progress. What
understanding of the process and results does the OGC have
at this point?
3. Again consult with Great Waters program.
Identify Data Gaps (State):
1 . Can States obtain other State data on sources? (As long
a* the other State voluntarly provide* auch Information,
there I* no legal restriction.)
2. The participants should specify certain parties to gather
the information.
G. Schedule and attend Site Visits:
1 . How does EPA assure state participation? 1 s it
through funding?
Page 5

-------
 MACT Partnership Proceee
      (optional process)
 EPA Headquarters
 EPA Regional
    Offices
 State* ft Locals
    IS/I) and
    STAPPA/
  ALAPCO (SIA]
  Industry or
Enviro Group*
                                                             COMMENTS FROM AIR TOXIC WORKSHOP
Fill Data Gaps (possible Sits
Visits)
Coordinate data
collection;
coordinate site visits
Supply data
as requested
Supply dntn as
requested;
coordinate site
visits
Supply data
as requested;
coordinate
site visits
  Gather Additional data:

 1.  Will the MACT and Generic data bases be continually
updated' (The MACT Data baee should be • living databe»e
used and maintained by and for the State and local agencies.
The EPA is busy getting the system In place but wit primariy
be a user. The Generic database maybe revisited do to the
nature of the information.  Specifically, a* the categories for
Presumptive MACT are acted on the partners from  the State
or local agency would be providing moat of this Information
that does not reside in the MACT database (permit
information, rules, other?).I

2. Who's responsibility is  it to populate the database? EPA?
or the State? [The MACT  Database n to be populated by the
States and local Agencies.)

3. Most states will not be able to update the database. (The
limitations and walls to enable Input need to be explored for
better National communication of thia information among the
regulators.)

4. It (Presumptive MACTI maybe just a legal safety net. (No.
There is no legal ramifications with the Pre-MACT process or
decision.)

  Gather  Additional data:

1. How does one  get and  transfer  the technology data?

2. What is the  policy when there is no data to  be gotten?

  Perform any analysis  needed (EPA):

1. How are we going to assure proper QA/QC  on industry
dnlH>

2. Will Technology transfer be thoroughly reviewed and
                                                                              Page 6

-------
MACT Partnership Process
(optional process)


Data Analysis, Formulating
Rationale









Consensus Meeting of Co-
regulator* (Select Pre-MACT,
Reg Route, Formulate
Questions, Plan Roundtable)



ESD Director's Ratification





EPA Headquarter*



Analyze data and
formulate potential
Pre-MACT rationale








Coordinate and lead
consensus building





ESO lead briefs
Director; Director
confirms with co-
regulators


EPA Regional
Office*


Analyze data
and formulate
potnntial Pro
MACT
rationale






Attend and
form
consensus




Assist in
briefing ESD
Director



States ft Locals
(S/LI and
8TAPPA/
ALAPCO (S/AI
Analyze data and
formulate
potential Pre
MACT rationale







Attend and form
consensus





S/L lead briefs
S/L (and S/A)
Management.
S/L Mgmt
confirms with
ESD
Industry or
Enviro Groups


























COMMENTS FROM AIR TOXIC WORKSHOP



Determine Initial Pre-MACT:

1 . To "shunt out" Why would not the Stele fust say Ihn rrmx
control is the one for MACT regardless of the floor? Let this
drive the information to industries and to EPA.
2. Where do you draw the line on alternative processes in
the MACT determination?
3. Just let the'hammer" fall.
4. How will the political influences be approached at the
State level in building consensus with EPA when we use the
"Top Down" approach?
Ratify Pre MACT (State):

1 . Would this be management of the S/L agency that is
participating or management of a larger group, e.g.,
STAPPA/ALAPC07
Round Table:
1 . Did we include all the sources that would be affected?






Page 7

-------
MACT Partnership Proem
(optional process)


Develop Briefing Package
of Consensus Results





Roundtable Meeting with
Industry and Enviros




(Co-regulator Reassessment]


Document Pre-MACT








EPA Headquarters



Develop materiel to
present at
Roundtable;
Document
Consensus; send to
Roundtable
participants
Present consensus
results & seek
feedback



(Coordinate Pre-
MACT
reassessment)
Formalize Pre-MACT
findings &
summarize public
input





EPA Regional
Offices


Assist in
developing
Roundtnble
mntnrinls



(Attend and
assist
presentation]



(Attend end
provide input)

(Assist EPA
HQ lead)







States & Locals
(S/LI and
STAPPA/
ALAPCO (S/AI
Assist in
developing
Roundtable
materials



(Attend and
assist
presentation)



(Attend and
provide input)

(Assist EPA HQ
lead)







Industry or
Enviro Groups









Review
Roundtable
material,
attend and
present
viewpoints












COMMENTS FROM AIR TOXIC WORKSHOP



















Determine Final Pre-MACT:

1 . There should be a reality Check. ..."Does this Pre-MACT
help clean the air?" (It Is anticipated that at the "consensus
or experts meeting" that such a reality check can be
accomplished.)
2. The stringency of presumptive MACT should not be
biased in either direction, as the finding relates to the floor.
3. Is the final Pre-MACT and emission limit or a technology?
Page 8

-------
MACT Partrwrehlp PTOCMS
(optional process)


Pre MACT Publication/
Communication







ADOPT/SHARE-
A MACT
Form Work Team







MACT Process "Primer"

Partnership Agreement (PA)











EPA Headquarters



Put Pre MACT
findings on TTN,
MAPS, docket








Seek partners &
interested intra-
Agency WG
members (depends
on Tier); contact
STAPPA/
ALAPCO, trade
assoc, enviros
Deliver primer to
Work Team
Work with OGC to
construct and ratify
PA; identify lead and
support for all work
plan tasks; build and
maintain
infrastructure





EPA Regional
Offices


(Assist EPA
HQ lead)









Volunteer,
respond to
EPA HQ





Attend Primer

Work with
EPA HQ to
construct PA;
agree to lead
or support







States » Locals
(S/LI and
STAPPA/
ALAPCO IS/A)
S/A put Pre-
MACT findings
on SLAD








S/A sends
message via
SLAD; S/L
volunteer,
respond to S/A



Attend Primer

Work with EPA
HQ to construct
PA; agree to lead
or support








Industry or
Enviro Groups


(Publish Pre-
MACT
findings in
Trnde/Enviro
Journals, etc.)






Volunteer,
respond to
EPA HQ





Attend Primer

Work with
EPA HQ to
construct PA;
agree to lead
or support







COMMENTS FROM AIR TOXIC WORKSHOP



1 . The Presumptive MACT results should be placed on the
TTN and elsewhere.

2. Should the results of Pre-MACT be published in the
Federal Register? (Currently thai legality of Presumptive
MACT is not an tasue. Presumptive MACT Is an initial
Identification of what MACT would be at this tima but Is not
In anyway required to be MACT. Therefore, the publication
In the Federal Register is not anticipated at this time.)


1 . Encourage/ support enviros to form watchdog teams, if
they are truly interested.

2. Team should get considerable upfront organization
structure so team members clearly know roles and know they
are backed-up by each other.


1 . Should be generic guidance, not new stuff created for
each standard or project.
1 . Link workplan to ESD tracking system, so all can follow
progress.

2. The Memorandum Of Agreement should be as
standardized as possible to limit negotiation points.

3. Should contain a generic manual.
o put project tracking on MAPS
o standardize project tracking system
o PA level of commitment: what's the recourse for
defaulting??
o PA must consider the lack of state funds
Page 9

-------
  MACT Partnership Process
      (optional process)
  £PA Headquarters
EPA Regional
   Offices
Stales & Locals
   18/1) and
   STAPPA/
ALAPCO (S/AI
 Industry or
Envlro Group*
                                                          COMMENTS FROM AIR TOXIC WORKSHOP
                                              LEAD
                                                  SUPPORT
                                         (always indudBS guidance and
                                       ongoing technical and policy review
                                                 by EPA HQ|
 Review Pre-MACT Finding* A
 Identify Data Gaps
Coordinate Pre-MACT review and
develop plan to fill data gaps
               Review Pre-MACT and develop plan
               to fill data gaps
                                  o QA/QC data used in Pre-MACT analysis
 Supplemental Data Gathering
 (including site visits and
 testing)
 Coordinate supplemental data
 gathering; compile information
               Assist in supplemental data
               gathering;  submit to lead
(Public Forum on Data]
(Coordinate forum and present data
collection efforts end available data;
seek feedback)
               (Assist lead as necessary)
Document Supplementary
Data Collection
Document supplementary data
collection; update docket
               Assist lead as necessary
Review and Revise Pre-MACT
Analysis
o categorization
o approach for developing
MACT floor
o analyze data, determine
MACT floor and additional
regulatory options
Review, revise, and supplement Pre-
MACT analysis (if any) to determine 1)
approach to categorization, 2)
approach for developing MACT floor,
3) MACT floor and additional
regulatory options
               Assist lead as necessary
ESD/OAQPS Concurrence
Brief ESD/OAQPS Director on
proposed revisions to Pre-MACT
                                                                     Assist lead as necessary
                                                  EPA must not overturn State lead recommendations very
                                                  often - this step should be defined as management
                                                  endorsement of a team decision and should not involve
                                                  "position taking" on part of EPA, Sfl_. and Stappa.
Document Pre-MACT
Revisions
Document revisions to Pre-MACT
                                      Assist lead as necessary
(Public Forum on MACT
Determinations)
(Coordinate forum and present
changes to Pre-MACT findings; seek
feedback on MACT and
implementation issues)
               (Assist lead as necessary]
                                                                             Page 1O

-------
MACT Partn«r*hlp Proc***
(optional proceed
Impact* Analysis
o emission reduction*
o secondary impact*
o costs
o economic impact*
Con*en*u* Meeting of Co-
Regulator*- MACT Salvation
ESD/OAQPS Concurrence
Draft Proposed Rule &
Preamble & Addressee
Implementation Issue*
(Public Forum on Draft
Proposed Rule and
Implementation Issues)
Final Proposal Package
EPA Haadquartara
EPA Regional
Office.
Perform impacts analyses- EPA HQ
make* certain a national perspective is
maintained
Coordinate and lead
oon*en*u* building
Brief ESD/OAQPS
Director on analysis
results &
recommended
MACT; select MACT
Lead draft* proposed
rule and preamble
and addresses
Implementation
issue*
(Coordinate forum
and present rule and
implementation
issue*; seek feed-
back)
Prepare proposal
package; update
docket
Present
findings and
recommend-
actions
Assist with
concurrence
briefing
Lead drafts
proposed rule
and preamble
and addressee
implementatio
n issues
(Assist EPA-
HQ as
necessary!
Assist EPA
HQ as
necessary
State* & Local*
(6/L) and
STAPPA/
ALAPCO IS/A)
Industry or
Envh-o Group*
Assist lead as necessary
Present findings
and recommend-
actions
Assist with
Concurrence
briefing
Lead drafts
proposed rule and
preamble and
addresses
implementation
issues
(Assist EPA HQ
as necessary!
Assist EPA HQ as
necessary



(Attend and
provide feed-
back!

COMMENTS FROM AIR TOXIC WORKSHOP

EPA must not overturn State lead recommendations very
often • this step should be defined a* management
endorsement of a team decision and should not Involv*
"position taking" on part of CPA, S/L, and Stappa.
Level of EPA commitment to endorsing S/L recommendations
should be defined in the MOA.



Page 1 1

-------
MACT Partnership Procaee
(optional process)
Agency Review and Decision
Proposal

Summarize and Develop
Response Plan for Public
Comments
Respond to Public Comment*
o additional data collection
o additional analysis
Recommend Proposal
Revisions
Consensus Meeting of Co-
Regulators-Proposal Revisions
ESD/OAQPS Director
Concurrence
EPA Headquarters
Prepare and track
submittal; meet with
Agency and OMB
officials as
necessary
Publicly recognize
significant partner
contributions; hold
public hearing
EPA Regional
Offices
Assist EPA-
HQ as
necessary

LEAD
Organize and summarize public
comments; develop a plan to address
comments and make respondent
assignments
Coordinate and prepare comment
responses; coordinate collection and
analysis of additional data
Formulate and document
recommended revisions to proposed
rule; distribute to co-regulators
Coordinate and lead
consensus building
Brief ESD/OAQPS
Director on
recommended rule
changes; select final
rule
Present
findings and
recommend-
actions
Assist with
concurrence
briefing
States & Locals
(S/LI and
STAPPA/
ALAPCO (S/A»
Assist EPA HO as
necessary
Review proposal
and submit
official comments
Industry or
Envb-o Groups

Review
proposal and
submit official
comments
SUPPORT
(always Includes guidance and
ongoing technical and policy review
by EPA-HQ)
Assist lead as necessary
Assist lead as necessary; submit
comment responses to lead
Assist lead as necessary; review
recommended revisions
Present findings
and recommend-
actions
Assist with
concurrence
briefing


COMMENTS FROM AIR TOXIC WORKSHOP






Consistency between final rule and Pre-MACT, 1 12(j), and
1 12(g) is important.
EPA and S/L leads need to posture themselves to respond to
Management comments
Page 12

-------
MACT Partnership Process
(optional process)
Draft Final Rule and Preamble
(Public Forum on Draft Final
Rule)
Final Promulgation Package
Agency Review and Decision
Plan Implementation Activities
Promulgation
Implementation Activities
EPA HaadqiMrtars
Lead drafts final rule
and preamble
(Coordinate forum
and present rule
changes; seek feed-
back)
Prepare
promulgation
package; update
docket
Prepare and track
submittal; meet with
Agency and OMB
officials as
necessary
Lead plans
implementation
activities
Publicly recognize
significant partner
contributions;
announce
implementation
activities
Coordinate
implementation
activities
EPA Regional
Offices
Lead drafts
final rule and
preamble
(Assist EPA
HQ 88
necessaryl
Assist EPA
HQ as
necessary

Lead plans
implementatio
n activities

Assist EPA
HO as
necessary
States & Locals
(S/LI and
STAPPA/
ALAPCO (S/A)
Lead drafts final
rule and preamble
(Assist EPA HQ
as necessaryl
Assist EPA HQ as
necessary

Lead plans
implementation
activities

Assist EPA HQ as
necessary
Industry or
Enviro Groups

(Attend and
provide feed
back!


Assist lead in
planning
implementa-
tion activities

Assist EPA
HQ HS
necessary
COMMENTS FROM AIR TOXIC WORKSHOP







Page 1 3

-------
      The State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators  (STAPPA) and the
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO) cannot  at this time support
the regulatory negotiation document.  The associations have come to this decision following
a long period of participation in the negotiation and considering  our longstanding concern
about the use of emissions averaging as a means of compliance with MACT standards. The
following are some of the reasons we have come  to this conclusion.

      The wood furniture coating NESHAP contains a "one-number "approach  that would
allow industry flexibility in achieving compliance with MACT.  The one-number  approach
would apply  1) across  an entire  facility to all  emission  points,  without regard to the
dispersion characteristics  of each point and the potential increase in risk to nearby residents;
2) to processes  that are  different in the coatings and coating technologies they use; and 3)
to all HAPs, without  regard to their relative toxicity.  STAPPA  and ALAPCO is concerned
about the  success of the proposed  NESHAP in insuring that the risk to public health is not
increased  due to the amount of compliance  flexibility proposed.

      Eleven   HAPs of potential  concern  have  been  identified  in  the  Formulation
Assessment Plan  (FAP)  provisions of the NESHAP.  In the FAP  provisions, increases in
emissions  of any  of these HAPs  of potential  concern above an established  baseline are
subject to state  and local agency review with certain exceptions.  STAPPA and ALAPCO
support all these exceptions except for the increased production exception industry desires.

      In this exception,  industry has asked that increases in emissions of these eleven HAPs
be allowed if they are due to increased  production  and the coatings responsible for those
emissions  are applied as efficiently or more efficiently than before the production increase
occurred.   The ability for a source to increase emissions of HAPs, no matter what the
reason,  without the  opportunity  for  a state or  local agency to review those  increased
emissions  for impacts on human health is an important issue that STAPPA and ALAPCO
are greatly concerned about.

      STAPPA and ALAPCO has offered a number of alternatives  during the negotiation
to limit emission increases to allow only those that  did not increase the likelihood of adverse
human health effects. These alternatives  have  not been  acceptable to the full committee.
Since the  entire format  of the NESHAP  rests on the  one-number approach  and STAPPA
and  ALAPCO  have clearly and  consistently insisted  that there be  guarantees that this
standard  protect public  health (or at least did not potentially increase risks), STAPPA and
ALAPCO cannot endorse the one number approach  without guarantees that increases in
emission of HAPs of potential  concern can receive scrutiny by state and local agencies.

      The trends report also is extremely important.  One of the main compliance methods
for this source  category  is solvent substitution of chemicals not contained in the Clean Air
Act's list of 189 HAPs.   STAPPA and ALAPCO  have expressed concern over  the toxicity
of the substituted  solvents.   In  order to assess the impacts  on  the public, permitting
authorities must know which non-HAP  solvents are  substituted  into these coatings, and  if
these substitutes are more toxic than  the chemicals that  they replace.   Accordingly, if the

-------
trends report does not include non-HAPs, we cannot support  the NESHAP.


      Finally,  STAPPA and  ALAPCO believe that compliance with the  NESHAP limits
must not be accomplished  with MSDS sheets, but with certified product data  sheets. These
list HAPs in amounts below  1 percent and are consistent  with the data obtained  through
Method  311. Use of MSDS sheets could allow a source to be out of compliance  with the
NESHAP limit, yet not be required to report any HAPs in the  coating if multiple HAPs are
present in a coating but each represented  less that  1 percent of the total  weight (or volume).
Therefore, the  use of MSDS  sheets  to determine  compliance  cannot be allowed.

-------
Implementation
  Workshop
 MACT  PARTNERSHIPS
        - a summary paper -
     August 29-31, 1994 4 Washington Duke Inn, Durham, NC
                 S*S? f!\ fBVBl K\ I n\ n /ft ^fr^ff^ Suu •"* Teniiori«J AJr Pollui.oo w
                 U /Silnr^/i^lLZSMr^jy AMOOMIOD of Loe«l Air Pollution Control Ofli«»U

      P«rt, North Ctroliiu 271] 1

-------
                   Table of Contents
Introduction to MACT Partnerships - 2-pager/figures



Introduction to Presumptive MACT

     Questions and answers

     Process steps in briefing form

     MACT Database Factsheet
Introduction to Share-a-MACT
Introduction to Adopt-a-MACT
Material on Roles and Responsibilities
Ranking  of  7-year  MACT  Standards  for  Presumptive  MACT
Determinations
A New Framework for the State/EPA Partnership  - memo from the
Administrator  of EPA  attaching Joint  Policy Statement  on
partnerships

-------
                              PREFACE
       This summary paper was compiled from draft material being prepared by staff
within the Emission Standards Division (ESD) of EPA's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards.  The material is being created to help communicate the
concepts behind the emerging MACT Partnerships program as currently understood
by ESD staff.  This partnership program  originated in a meeting of EPA and
STAPPA/ALAPCO managers in December 1993 and was further developed by EPA
and STAPPA/ALAPCO representatives in a planning workshop in February 1994.
The concepts as articulated  in the enclosed material flow from these earlier
discussions and reflect the results of a working retreat held by ESD staff to further
define the MACT Partnerships program.  This material is offered as one way to
inform EPA, State and local air pollution control managers and staff about the MACT
Partnerships program.  Comments are welcome (encouraged); they should be sent to
Fred Dimmick at EPA or to Mary Douglas Sullivan at  STAPPA/ALAPCO.

-------
                INTRODUCTION TO MACT PARTNERSHIPS    August 10, 1994
Background
     Section 112 of the Clean Air Act  (CAA) requires EPA  to
promulgate MACT standards on a strict schedule.  Thirty-nine more
MACT standards must be promulgated by November 1994, 43 more by
Nov 1997, and an additional 87 by Nov 2000.  Section 112  (j) of
the CAA contains the "hammer" provision that, if EPA fails to
promulgate federal standards, the states will then be required to
establish standards individually--using a case-by-case
determination of what the federal standard would have been.  In
addition to the 112(j) requirements, Section 112(g) also  requires
•case-by-case" determinations when a major air toxics source
constructs, reconstructs or makes a modification before a federal
MACT standard has been set and after the State has a Title V
permit program.

     Both 112(j) and (g) will require substantial information and
a lot of work by the state and local agencies as well as  industry
and environmental interests.  Thus there is a strong incentive
for collaboration among EPA, State/locals, industry and
environmentalists to work together to promulgate the standards on
schedule and to gather information for 112(g) "case-by-case' MACT
determinations.

Issue

     The EPA is currently behind schedule on a number of  1994
MACT standards and has.had to put many of the 1997 MACT standards
on hold due to budget reductions.  In order to meet both  the
seven and ten year deadlines, EPA must develop new approaches to
streamline the standard setting process and to leverage its
limited resources.    To that end, the Agency is currently working
on a new process for developing MACT standards that will  involve
a partnership with states, industry, and environmental
organizations.

     This partnership is founded on the mutual interests  of all
the major stakeholders in the air toxics program.   No one wants
permit hammers to fall except as a last resort.  Everyone would
like to oake the •case-by-case* MACT determinations quickly and
in a manner that ensures they will be acceptable to all
interests.  For many source categories for which MACT standards
are required.  State and local agency personnel have the
expertise, information and desire needed to develop MACT
standards.   In addition,  industry personnel are clearly  capable
of developing MACT standards.  The EPA can help States and
industry avoid the difficulties of "case-a-case" MACT
determinations by facilitating the development of a presumptive
MACT through a consensus -based process involving all the
stakeholders.   In doing so,  EPA will accelerate its our work
towards getting MACT standards out on time.

-------
      This MACT Partnerships  program as  currently  envisioned  will
 begin with two main steps: a State/local-EPA experts meeting and
 then consultations  with  industry,  environmental and other
 interests.  Both EPA and state  officials  will serve as experts  to
 develop a "presumptive MACT  standard" based  on available
 information.   This  presumptive  MACT standard will then go  to a
 consultation stage  where industry  and environmental groups will
 be invited to comment on the selected MACT.   After this
 consultation,  EPA and the potential  partners will determine  how
 best to complete the development of  the standard.

      We envision three basic regulatory development processes.
 In all cases,  EPA would  eventually propose and then promulgate
 the MACT standard.   If there are few sources or if a state or
 group of states wishes to lead  data  collection and analysis,  then
 the "adopt-a-MACT'  path  will allow EPA  to contract with a  state
 to take on the job.   The "share-a-MACT" path will allow states,
 industry or both to share with  EPA the  responsibility for
 developing the underlying data  and analysis  for the rule.  For
 those cases where no suitable partners  <*-»" be found, the
 •streamlined-traditional" path  is  the last alternative where EPA
 goes through a streamlined process of the traditional rule
 development .   No matter what path is chosen,  almost all
 standards would go  through the  experts meeting and also the
 second consultative  stage.

      Two figures are provided to indicate the timelines that are
 anticipated for the  MACT Partnerships program.  The first
 timeline describes the near  term activities  from July to December
 of  1994  that develop this partnership into a viable program.
 Further  suggestions  oc this  timeline are  welcome.  The second
 timeline shows  the flow of work on MACT standards from the EPA-
 State/local experts meeting  through the various regulatory paths
 for the  MACT standards that are due in November of 1997; this.
 projection depends on the extent the MACT Partnership program is
 accepted and implemented by all stakeholders.

      In  summary, the MACT-Partnerships program is one way  to
 pursue new, assertive ways to develop MACT standards.  MACT
 Partnerships is characterized by* EPA and  State/localities-working
 together with industry and environmentalists  to fulfill-the
 mandate  to set MACT standards for sources of  hazardous air
 pollutants.  Given the mutual interest of all the stakeholders
 and EPA's  current "budgetary* situation within the air toxics
 program, EPA has begun redefining  its role for many MACT
 standards as a coordinator and facilitator.    The BPA is
 fortunate  to have begun working with several  states on pilot
 projects for MACT standards addressing the yeast manufacturing
 and primary aluminum manufacturing.  In August 1994, EPA,  State-
 and local officials and staff will be exploring further how  to
make MACT  Partnerships work.

     For information, contact Fred Dimmick at EPA's  Emission
 Standards Division -- 919-541-5625  (voice) or 919-542-0072(fax).

-------
            MACT PARTNERSHIPS
                Term Activities Timeline
                                                       Drtfl V22A4
                                                         wta
    Jo»y-
 A* Texas
"Wortshop"
             ffedefrw
            Preens Slept
             •nd Rotes
'CompMtPfc*1
-Octobet
                                 -Novembe<-
                                              -Oecemb

                           ePA-STAPPA/ALAPCO safe* Sr«te/tocW
                          ptrtdpiton in MACT Partnerships btsfdo
                                 C*netti*eSC
                          loe Optoral Wcy> oTFundbig Pv«MnNps
             Develop Guidance
             Develop Tools
             Provide Training as Needed
                Omriop Ovml EPA4TAPPAMLAPCO »taraB«iwnl
                                       I  EPA-  |
                                       STAPPA/ALAPCO

-------
    MACT PARTNERSHIPS
Long Term Activities Timeline
      ' Z72-S-
      •w
  Nov 94
           Nov95
                    Nov96
NovS7
              Streamlined Traditional Regulation Development
                   Complete Adopt- and Share- MACTs
                  WV-MACT REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT

-------
                                                  August  26,  1994


                Introduction to Presumptive MACT
     Presumptive MACT is an estimate of MACT based on  available
data that can be obtained quickly.  It is done at the beginning
of a project in a short timeframe  (3 to 6 months) .  Presumptive
MACT answers the question, "If MACT had to be determined today,
what would it be?"  It is developed in a partnership between EPA
and State and local air pollution control agencies with input
from industry and environmental groups.  Due to the nature of  and
the timeframe for Presumptive MACT, considerations such as the
MACT floor, control cost and economic impacts, and benefits would
not be available.  If more than one level of control is viable as
Presumptive MACT, generally the most protective option should  be
selected to ensure it is at least as stringent as the floor and
to minimize the possibility that the MACT standard will be more
stringent than Presumptive MACT.

    The primary purpose for developing Presumptive MACT is to
assist State and local agencies in Section J.12 (g) case-by-case
MACT determinations and facilities with Section 112(j) hammer
provision standards in the event that standards are not
available.  Another purpose for Presumptive MACT is to enhance
upfront planning in the standards development process, to
identify issues to be resolved early in a process,  and to
identify key players.  The final purpose is a recommendation of
the proposed regulatory path that should be taken to develop
MACT.  This recommendation could include traditional regulation
development or candidates for innovative regulatory paths, such
as Adopt-A-MACT,  Share-A-MACT, or even a quick route to propose
the presumptive MACT as MACT.

    The Presumptive MACT would be as complete as possible to.
make it of «»*Hfiimm use in case-by-case MACT decisions.  Emission
limitations would be provided as possible; 'if not,  the control"
technology representing Presumptive MACT would be cited.., Other
elements to consider in the decisions, include subcategorization
and regulation of area sources.  Appropriate enhanced monitoring
requirements would be selected as possible.  Reporting,
recordkeeping,  and notification requirements would be specified;
generally through the tabular summary cross reference to the
requirements in the General Provisions in 40 CFR 63.   The last
element of Presumptive MACT would be a list of questions to be
answered in taking the project forward to a MACT standard.

    Information which might be available for developing
Presumptive MACT includes State and local regulations, previous
regulatory efforts for this source category,  MACT standards that
have been developed for similar sources (or have information
which might transfer),  existing test reports,  literature

-------
 searches,  permits,  and  perhaps other  information.  Site visits
 and abbreviated Section 114 questionnaire  surveys may or  may  not
 be conducted,  depending on the project.  Documentation of the
 available  information would be used as supportive evidence to
 Presumptive MACT and would serve as a starting point for  further
 regulatory development.  This would include the documentation of
 the selected Presumptive MACT and a list of questions to  be
 resolved and other  information, as possible, such as a list of
 contacts,  a brief industry description, a  summary of available
 data,  and  applicable State and local  regulations or permits.

     The process of  developing Presumptive  MACT for a specific
 source category contains several steps.  First, the EPA and
 State/local agencies that have an interest in the source  category
 would  form a team and the EPA and State leads would be
 identified.  As early as possible, the BPA and State/local team
 would  review the readily available information to determine what
 data gaps  are able  to be filled prior to identifying Presumptive
 MACT.   The team shall decide if additional existing information
 can be obtained to  fill  the data gaps and develop a plan  to
 obtain it.   Meetings with industry and environmental groups may
 assist in  this process.  As soon as* the relevant existing
 information has been obtained, a meeting of the EPA and
 State/local experts would be held to  choose preliminary
 Presumptive MACT.  An effort should be made to reach agreement
 between EPA and the State/local experts in the decisions;  where a
 preliminary Presumptive MACT can not  determined,  the team should
 articulate the questions needed to be answered before a
 Presumptive MACT can be determined.

     The preliminary Presumptive MACT  decision that results from
 the experts meeting would first be ratified by the Director of
 the Emission Standards Division and STAPPA/ALAPCO and then be
 presented  to.ther industry^and^envlronmental. concerns at an'open
 roundtable meeting .^The^eam~would present* an overview'of-the
 Presumptive MACT processi^escrlbe'^the *MACT process;1-review our
 findings on. the industry *y*^ • ourr'*re8uXting preliminary
 Presumptive'MACT. ~ Industry and^environmentaT groups -would -then
 provide information that they "have developed and their comments
 on  the preliminary Presumptive MACT.'  Following the Presumptive
 MACT roundtable meeting, the EPA and State/local partners would
 meet to consider the information and  concerns presented in the
 roundtable meeting and decide the final Presumptive MACT.   Final
 Presumptive MACT and the documentation would then be communicated
 to  the  public through means such as the TTN and the MACT
 database.

     All 7-  and 10-year source categories are candidates for
 Presumptive MACT.  Since the major purposes for Presumptive MACT
are for case-by-case MACT determinations and early project
planning, projects that are well along or will have proposed
 standards during FY95 would be less viable candidates.

-------
                                                  DRAFT
                                                  August  19,  1994
                        Presumptive MACT
                      Questions and Answers


 What is Presumptive MACT?

     Presumptive MACT  is our  'best guess'  at  MACT,  based  on
     data  which can be obtained in a short time frame.  It  is
     done  at  the beginning of a project within the first 3 -
     6 months.   Presumptive MACT answers the  question, "If
     MACT  had to be determined today, what would it be?'

 What is it used for?

     The primary purposes for Presumptive  MACT are: 1) to
     assist State and  local agencies in Section 112 (g) case-
     ly-case  MACT determinations and facilities with Section
     112Cj) hajuer  provision  standards, 2) establish the
     Agency's preliminary decision point at which formal MACT
     development will  proceed.  It has no  statutory basis  or
     legal standing and is offered only for guidance,
     caveated by the depth of available information on which
     it is based.

 What is the result of the Presumptive MACT determination?

     The process of developing Presumptive MACT has two main
     products:

     1) The  Presumptive MACT and a list of questions to be
     addressed in developing a MACT standard
                   ,           ^
     2) A recommendation of  the proposed  regulatory path  which
     should'be taken to develop MACT

 What i« the rrtnrmmanaatlon of the proposed regulatory, path?.

     After the short information gathering period, a
     recommendation of the best manner in which to develop
     the standard will be made.  This recommendation could
     Include traditional regulation development (either In-
     house or with contract support), Adopt-A-MACT, Share-A-
     MACT, or even a guide route to propose the Presuaptive
     MACT as MACT.  The recommendation would be based on many
     factors, Including the accessibility and need for
     additional Information gathering, the uncertainties
     associated with the Presumptive MACT, and the presence
     of a strong State lead, amongst other factors.

What kind of documentation would be done?

-------
     The documentation would be used as supportive evidence
     to the Presumptive MACT determination and  serve as a
     starting point for further regulatory development.  It
     may include  meeting minutes, briefing packages,
     memorandum,  or brief summary reports, but  is not
     formalized.  This documentation could include,  but are
     not limited  to, the documentation of the selected
     Presumptive  MACT; a list of issues to be resolved; a
     list of contacts associated *ith the project (industry,
     State and locals, interested environmentalist groups,
     and team members); a recommended Approach  for further
     regulation development; a brief industry description,  a
     summary of available data; and any applicable State and
     local regulations.

Since this is not a requirement in the Act, why make a..
Presumptive MACT determination?

     Although the development of Presumptive MACT is not a
     statutory requirement, it vill aid the State and  local
     agencies in  making case-hy-case MACT determinations.   In
     addition, it should be a useful planning tool in 'the
     standards development process, trill identify issues to
     be resolved  early in a process, identify key players,
     and suggest  a manner in which to develop MACT.  All of
     these can help us leverage our 7, luff-*** resources  and put
     us in a tetter position to aeet the requirements of
     Section  112.

Bow is Presumptive MACT developed?
                MACT if an estimate of what MACT would be
    after a brief review of available information.--^--  i<
                      Ive MACT should Jbe *ore stringent;
        itfr vjHiii jiwttf f \rA.tnf"riv*v/n*n v-fTr rrfi i ^ jn~rf H*H'i IIHI
        '. ' *a- «top-dorn* "analysis ^ay^prove tisefulSTor^this
    purpose.  Very .little, ^if any, new data soch^as source
    tetrffngr would to generated ly the "agency in developing ^.
    the Presumptive MACT.  after gathering the existing ^c-^-
    information, a 'hest guess' to what MACT might be is  * ••-.
    made.  It is anticipated that, in most cases, it would
    not be possible or necessary to conduct a formal •floor*
    analysis in developing presumptive MACT.

    Information which might be available tor developing
    Presumptive MACT includes State and local regulations,
    previous regulatory efforts for this source category,
    MACT standards that have been developed for similar
    sources (or have information which might transfer),
    existing test reports (solicited from industry),
    literature searches, permits, and perhaps other
    information.  Site visits and abbreviated 5114

-------
    questionnaire surveys may or jnay not be conducted,
    depending on the project.

    Presumptive MACT would be developed from this available
    information and documentation would be as complete as
    possible to what a MACT would require. Emission
    limitations would generally be provided; if this is not
    possible, only the type of control representing
    Presumptive MACT would be cited.  Reporting,
    recordkeeping, and notification requirements would be
    specified as possible.  In most cases, this would
    consist of a summary or a reference to the requirements
    in the General Provisions to 40 CFR 63.  (An initial
    summary will be provided; this would be modified for a
    specific project.)  Appropriate enhanced monitoring
    requirements would be selected; however, it is expected
    that this would seldom be possible.

Will every project do Presumptive MACT?

    All 7- and 10-year source categories are candidates for
    a Presumptive MACT determination.  Since the major
    purpose for Presumptive MACT is for early project
    planning and case-Jby-case MACT determinations, projects
    that are well along and will propose standards in FX9S
    would be less viable candidates.  Portions of the
    Presumptive MACT process have merit to IY95 projects,
    e.g., consensus meeting.

Who plays a role in developing Presumptive MACT?

    EPA and State/local agencies will both play a key role
    in making the final determination of Presumptive MACT
    and the recommended regulatory development path.
    Generally; the EPA effort would be conducted la-house,
    without contractor support.• Industry will play a role
    in supplying information (on a timely &asis,, as always).
    Every attempt should be made to reach a consensus with
    the State/local partners in the decisions/ however, the
    ultimate responsibility for the Presumptive MACT
    decision rests with the EPA.

-------
PRE-MACT INFRASTRUCTURE
       PREPARATION
DEVELOP AND TRIAL THE PROCESS
REVIEW SCL FOR SAM/MM CANDIDATES
PUT LIST ON TTN
DRAFT GENERIC LETTERS ABOUT PROCESS
COMPILE OVERVIEW INFORMATION
 ON SOURCE CATEGORIES

-------
       MACT PARTNERSHIPS
INFRASTRUCTURE
PRESUMPTIVE
  MACT
                              ADOPT-A-MACT
                              SHARE-A-MACT
                              TRADITIONAL
                                 MACT

-------
            INFORMATION GATHERING (8-12 WEEKS)
 EPA
            SETUP  COORDINATE WITH
            DOCKET  SELECTED EPA OFFICES
            REVIEW MACt
            AND GENERIC
            DATABASE
BOTH
STATE/
 LOCAL
   REVIEW RULES
   FOR THIS AND SIMILAR
   SOURCES
MEET WITH
INTEREST GROUPS
(UPON REQUEST)
OBTAIN/REVIEW
STATE/LOCAL
INFORMATION,
RULES, PERMITS
 DOCUMENT!
 ANALYSES

REVIEW
AVAILABLE
INFORMATION
•IDENTIFY DATA GAPS
<3COPING MEETING >

  DOCUMENT
  ANALYSES
DEVELOP AND
DOCUMENT NEW
ANALYSES
DEVELOP PLAN
TO FILL DATA GAPS
-LETTERS
-SITE VISITS
-OTHER
                                                         I
DEVELOP AND
DOCUMENT NEW
ANALYSES
 INDUSTRY &
 ENVIRONMENTAL
 GROUPS
    REQUEST
    MEETING

-------
               FORM TEAM (1-2 WEEKS)
EPA
IDENTIFY EPA
PLAYERS
&LEAD
LETTER TO
8TAPPA/ALAPCO
SEEKING
INFORMATION
INITIATE
LITERATURE SEARCH,
INCLUDING
AIRS DATA
LETTERS TO:
INDUSTRY
TRADE GROUPS
ENVIRONMENTAL
GROUPS
SMALL BUSINESSES
 BOTH
                PRE-MACT
                TEAM
                ASSEMBLED
STATE/
LOCAL
             STATE COMMITS
             TO PROVIDE THEIR STATE
             INFORMATION AND
             TO ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE
INDUSTRY &
ENVIRONMENTAL
GROUPS

-------
            SELECT PRE-MACT (3-6 WEEKS)
EPA
     SET UP
     EXPERTS
     MEETING
                SET UP
                ROUNDTABLE
                MEETING
                  DOCUMENT
                  MEETING.
                  ANALYSES,
                  PRE-MACT
BOTH
MEETING TO DETERMINE
PRELIMINARY PRE-MACT
1. USE TOP-DOWN TO DETBMNE
   PRE-MACT
i U«T QUESTIONS TO
  ANSWER WMACT DEVELOPMENT
91 DETERMWE REGULATORY PATH
4 PlANTWEROUNDTABtEMEETWO
RATIFY
PREUMIMARY
PRE-MACT
(E90-
8TAPPA/ALAPCO)
ROUNDTABLE MEETING

 PRESENT  PRESENT
 -INDUSTRY  RECOMMENDED
 -EMISSIONS  PRE-MACT
 •TECHNOLOGY
 OVERVIEW
STATE/
 LOCAL
                                                  DOCUMENT
                                                  ANALYSES
 INDUSTRY &
 ENVIRONMENTAL
 GROUPS
                                     ATTEND
                                     MEETING -
                                     PROVIDE
                                     INPUT

-------
                          MACT  DATABASE


      Background:     The MACT database is an implementation tool
 for States to use  in making case-by-case MACT determinations.
 This database is in  the late planning stages now.

      ESD uses AIRS/AFS to house the MACT database because  it
 currently contains taost of the data fields we believe are  needed
 for case-by-case MACT determinations.  Emission fields for all
 the facility, processes, and pollutants that ESD requests  in the
 ICR form also exist  in AIRS/AFS except the capture device  field.
 One data field that  ESD uses but that Is not generally a part of
 the generic ICR form is actual uncontrolled emissions, which will
 be  useful for potential-to-ejut work.  AIRS/AFS is Also the data
 system that will be  used to support the Title V Operating  Permit
 System, and as such, we believe It Is the most logical choice for
 the MACT database since 112(g) and (j) case-by-case MACT
 determinations must  be reflected In the permit.

     AIRS/AFS can currently be used for storing, assimilating,
 and displaying available source category Information.  However,
 little HAP data is currently available for determining MACT.  A
 great amount of criteria pollutant data Is available^ but  this
 should be used with great care as a surrogate, since the behavior
 of  toxic partlculate and organic species differs In varying
 degrees from the criteria counterparts.  Although some source
 categories are well defined In the existing SCO code system some
 are not and will not be well defined until the SCC code project
 (briefly described below) Is finished and the Information made
 available to the State users.

     Upgrades:  Significant efforts are underway to advance the
 MACT Database:

     •  User Requirements Analysis and Project Scope being  •.
     conducted by the national Air Data Branch (BADE) Is underway
     to better define enhancements to AIRS/AFS -• >.^vr^v ,rr.: ,-- ••••..,..
                                                '/
     •  another project underway is the Identification of Section
     112 fooree categories with SCC codes.  This project targets
     source categories and processes in the Section 112 source
     category list for which EPA has not yet begun the data
     collection process for a MACT standard.

     •  A third project Is to provide States with guidance on
     using data obtained from AIRS/AFS for making case-Jby-case
     MACT determinations.

     The guidance and SCC code documents and the User
Requirements Analysis are due to be finalized this fall.

-------
                          Attachment 1

                                                  August 9,  1994

             Share-A-MACT-Questions That Need To Be
                    Addressed  in the  Workplan
        (Beyond Those Addressed in  a  Traditional Project)

     1.   Who are the partners?

     2.   What task(s) will each partner  do?  What is the
endproduct; the inter in products; any specifics  about how the
task will be performed! the timetable for deliverables?

     3.   Can the task be done  and still  neet the 7 or 10 year
deadline in the CAA?  If not,  can the task be modified to fit?
If not,  should it  be done?

     4.   If more than one State is  doing a task, which State is
the lead State?  How will the  lead  State get feedback from other
partner  States?  Any other interested States? Who will review
what and when?

     5.   Will EPA  funding be provided for State  tasks?  If so,
how such? What is the funding mechanism?

     6.   Is a memorandum of understanding required spelling out
endproducts and due dates?  What are  the consequences (even if
there is no memorandum of understanding) if a task is not
performed in time?

     7.   What role will the partner(s) play in the EPA
decision/review process over the life of the project?  Will they
be part  of the core team that  determines the recommendations on
the standard for proposal? * Will .they attend decision meetings
for higner, level-EPA management?^Will they be.j£hej parties
responsible Xforyrespnn<1 i ngatblgPA/oitB. questions^on their,tasks?
Will.they b^e*le^%ake««ments^
same way as any BPA office? £,If, a; State ,,is a partner., 4will they
prepare  responses  to public comments" on  the tasks they are
responsible for?   What role will they play in the EPA/OMB
management review  process  for promulgation?

     8.   Will periodic (e.g. biweekly) teleconferences occur for
coordination among partners/EPA?

     9.   What are  the plans and timetables for coordinating with
non-partner external groups and the EPA workgroups?  How does
this fit with the  coordination process among partners?  Who is on
the EPA workgroup?

     10.  For EPA  tasks, which parts will an EPA contractor do?
By what mechanism  will the contractor communicate with non-EPA
partners (directly, or indirectly through the WAM)?

-------
                   INTRODUCTION TO SHARE-A-MACT

      1-   Share-a-MACT  is a process  in  which  EPA  is  the  lead in
 developing a standard, but partners perform  selected, clearly
 identified tasks, and  participate more fully in  the rulemaking process
 than if  they were interested parties only.

      2.   Partners can  be State  (or  local) air pollution control
 agencies,  industry groups, and/or environmental  groups.   EPA is
 currently actively seeking State partners.   Industry and environmental
 groups could also be partners, although their roles would have to  be
 more limited for legal reasons  (especially during the promulgation
 phase).

      3.   Share-a-MACT  is advantageous  to EPA because it  may allow  EPA
 to acquire data  it would otherwise  not have  the  resources to acquire;
 it will  promote  consensus building  and information  exchange which
 enhance  the quality of rules; and it may allow EPA  to have better
 access to State  expertise on particular source categories.

      4.  "Share-a-MACT  is advantageous  to partners because it will
 allow them to participate more directly in the day-to-day activities
 of developing the background materials and participating in meetings
 to decide  recommendations on key aspects of  the  rules.

      5.  A process flow diagram has been prepared to illustrate the
 generic  Share-a-MACT process.  However,  this  diagram is  only very
 general  because  the specifics will vary from project-to-project,
 depending  on the number of partners and the  tasks they agree to
 perform.  Attachments  1 and 2 provide  some additional detail.

      6.  The generic process flow diagram for Share-a-MACT is very
 similar  to  the diagram for EPA to prepare a  rule without  partners.
 They key differences include (1) development  of a workplan clearly
 defining the specifics about the tasks  to be performed by partners,
 (2)  the  early participation of partners in meetings  to decide
 recommendations  for various components  of the rule,   (3)  the active
 participation of partners in..EPA decision meetings to respond to
 questions and comments on the'tasks they have performed, -and (4) 'the
 potential participation of partners in responding to public comments
 on a proposed rule for the tasks they performed  (for legal  reasons, a
 partner's role may be more'limited here).

      7.  A key step in Share-a-MACT is  to quickly develop a
 comprehensive and agreed-to Workplan that clearly defines partners'
 (including EPA)  roles and responsibilities,  partners' relationships,
 and  the  timing for end products.  A critical question that  has  to be
 answered in developing the Workplan is whether the tasks  proposed to
 be performed by the partner (s)  ra»" be done in time to keep  the
 standards on schedule;  if not,  how can-they be modified to fit?  A
 draft list of questions to be answered  for the workplan is  available;
 no doubt additional  questions may arise.  The questions address
 specifics of tasks,  timing,  relationships among partners,
 relationships among  State partners and other  interested States, etc.

     8.   Comments on how to improve the Share-a-MACT process  are
welcome.   Room for improvement will continue as the process evolves
and we all learn through experience.

-------
      Additional  plans  for AIRS/AFS include:

      •   a  fixed  format reporting capability to display MACT data
      for the reviewer,

         a  bibliography section to reference documentation of the
      basis for the emissions estimates f

      •   a  MACT flag to identify facilities that have undergone a
      case-by-case MACT determination,

      •   a  field  populated by the user to enumerate the number of
      sources in  a source category within the State, and

      •   a  field  populated by the system that enumerates the
      number of sources in a source category that are represented
      in  the system.

      Other enhancements may also be made to AIRS/AFS in support
of the MACT program that are not described here.

      Training:  EPA plans to schedule training sessions for both
air toxic program and emissions program people in states and
Regional Offices as soon as the enhancements to AIRS are underway
in BADE.

     Basalt:  After completion of these projects, we envision the
State, as the primary user, will be able to enter BAP data for
their Sectlor 222 source categories Into well dafined data
fields, retrieve national data on the same from other States
having information in the system, generate a report that displays
the retrieved information logically, and provides a rough
calculation of, the J2t .floor«
     fife o«er:«i22>«ti21: fei;x«flr^
retrieved information through the" liihliography ^control
efficiency e«f finf Jtui xetbodff ***** mm*mm£on -tttlmrttQ •nffirntr to
assure the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) desired "tor 'the data.
•re plan Tor the user to he able to flag facilities that have
undergone a case-hy-case MACT determination, and retrieve a
Offer-defined County, State > Regional or national list of such
facilities.  Users will be advised to query the system before
determining KACT to see if a MAC? .has already jfeen determined for
a sooroe category, and whether that determination has been
superseded based on more current data.

-------
     11.   What will be the process for resolving conflict among
States'5  Among EPA and States?

     12.   Should the first interim product on a given task be a
description/outline of the endproduct to ensure common
understanding?

     13.   How will CBI be addressed?

-------
Attachment 2                                      August 9, 1994
                       SHARE-A-MACT  (SAM\

                     DESCRIPTION OF  PROCESS

I.   Presumptive-MACT Meeting identifies Presumptive MACT,
General Approach (AAM,  SAM, other); and if SAM, candidate
partners (States, local,  industry,  etc.); work group process;
technical questions; targets for groups.
(1 month)

II.  EPA and Share-A-MACT candidates meet to decide which tasks
partners will do. (1 month)

III.  Partners develop input for work plan on their tasks; i.e.,
time to do task, specific outputs of task, how they will
coordinate with other groups (States),  resolve needs (if any)
from EPA.  EPA does the same with regard to remaining tasks; also
deciding which tasks will be done under contract.
(1 month)

IV.  Complete draft work plan (1 month).  Work plan needs to
address a number of specific questions addressing relationships
with partners.  Each work plan will differ, depending on the
project, but a list of questions that should be addressed is
attached.

V.  Meet to finalize work plan (1 month).  Data are developed by
various partners and inputted to EPA.  EPA consolidates
information.   EPA is overall lead.   EPA distributes consolidated
information to partners.

VI.  EPA and partners meet to decide recommended MACT.

VII. Compiled information and recommended MACT are distributed to
all interested parties  for a roundtable or KAPCTAC meeting.
                             •
VIII.  EPA goes through normal EPA decision and review process
with partners available to answer partners on their task* and to
comment on recommendations.

IX. Standard is proposed.

X.   EPA reviews public comments.  Those pertaining to tasks done
by State partners are given to States to answer questions about
data and to prepare a preliminary response.  Industry partners
are treated differently,  tout we may at least ask them questions
about any tasks they performed.

XI.  EPA and State partners meet to develop position on final
recommended standard.

XII. Go through EPA decision/review process as before for
promulgation.

XIII.  Promulgation.

Attachment

-------
                   INTRODUCTION TO ADOPT-A-MACT   August  10,  1994

     The "adopt-a-MACT" regulatory development process is part  of
an  EPA-STAPPA/ALAPCO program  entitled  MACT Partnerships.   The
adopt-a-MACT  process is  one  of  the ways  EPA  and State/local
partners can  complete a MACT  standard  after the EPA-State/local
experts meeting.  If, in this meeting, the EPA-State/local  partners
conclude that an adopt-a-MACT process  is appropriate,  State  or
local  agency  personnel  would  collect and analyze any additional
data needed to complete the MACT standard.  They would also prepare
the documentation needed by EPA in fulfilling the  regulatory steps
associated  with  proposing  the  MACT  standard   in  the  Federal
Register.    After  proposal of  the MACT  standard,  EPA  would
coordinate  the  development of  responses  to  comments  by  the
State/local agency personnel.

     Adopt-a-MACT projects will generally be associated with source
categories where there are relatively few sources affected by the
MACT standard.  This factor is more characteristic of an  adopt-a-
MACT project  «rhan a  condition for such  a project.   An initial
review of the source categories due in November 1997 indicates that
8 source categories have only 1 source in the category.    For such
categories, States and  local agency personnel  (along with plant
personnel and consultants)  form  the best technical resource  to
develop a MACT standard on  a short schedule  and within a limited
budget.  Many State agencies have developed air toxics programs and
have been setting technology-based and  health-based requirements
for sources  of HAP.  Where a State  has addressed one  of these
source  categories,  it should  be possible to  complete  the MACT
standard expeditiously.

     The work done  by the  State/local  partner would be defined
during  the  EPA-State/local  experts meeting and the  subsequent
meetings  with  outside   interests,   particularly  industry  and
environmentalists.    A  list , of  tasks   would  be developed  and
documented in a memorandum of agreement between the State/local and
BPA partners.  The EPA will be developing guidance and  tools for
State/local partners to consider  before  becoming  a partner in an
adopt-a-MACT project.

     During   the   BPA- State/local   experts  meeting,   EPA  and
State/local representatives would develop a presumptive  MACT as
completely as possible.    However,  where questions remain,  the
partners would define further work  to  address these  questions.
Also,  as the partners explain the presumptive  MACT  and questions to
the outside interest, more questions are likely  to  be  raised.
Based on a  review of all these questions, the partners will define
what work is most needed  (and can  be completed given resources and
time)  to complete the MACT standards development.  For adopt-a-MACT
regulatory development, a  State or local partner would perform the
data collection, analysis, and  documentation  and EPA would perform
the role of senior advisor on policy issues.

-------
      Given the opportunity for EPA to  leverage the experience and
 talents of State/local personnel  in adopt-a-MACT projects,  EPA is
 considering how to fund these projects.  While some States  may be
 able to provide their experts on  an inkind basis,  EPA will  likely
 need to  help  fund  the expenses  for adopt-a-MACT projects  not
 typically borne by State/local agencies.  Funds will be  needed by
 EPA for doing its part of  this partnership.

      The amount of time and resources  required of  an adopt-a-MACT
 project will vary by the degree to which there is a consensus among
 all stakeholders that  the presumptive MACT reflects an appropriate
 outcome for MACT.  For those aspects  of  the MACT  standard where
 there  is  a  consensus  that  the  presumptive  MACT  reflects  an
 appropriate outcome for MACT, the partners  would spend  less time
 and resources.   This will allow the partners  to devote most  of the
 resources  and  time  on the  critical  questions  that  should  be
 addressed  to develop  an adequate MACT  standard.

      One issue that needs  to be clarified concerns  the~*extent  to
 which State/local personnel  and  other partners  can  participate
 after the  formal proposal  of a MACT standard.    In  the  MACT
 Partnerships program,  BPA  will need to work with all parties who
 participated   in  the  development of  the  proposal.  For the
 State/local partner in an adopt-a-MACT project, this will involve
 at  least a full  review of technical  comments  and potentially a
 discussion of policy questions raised  in public comments.

      During the  development of the MACT standard, the  State/local
 agency  will likely hold public meetings at locations  near the
 affected plants to obtain the views from the affected industry and
 publics.  A formal public hearing should not be needed during the
 rulemaking unless one  of the stakeholders requests  one.

      The BPA is likely to determine that rulemakings for adopt-a-
 MACT projects would follow  the,BPA's/Tier 3,r«ork group process. In A
 developing an£ analytical^blueprint £f or , such;, proj ects,- BPA • willp;
 outline 'theVMACT4PartnersMp^rc<;esB^                   "fcpproach^L
 to developing^the MACT **+***»*+ s&trit*fr*^»i *ya'inejm**i*¥mt-»nA»-rAffi»affi
 staff will ensure  that OAR  management are  Informed,  that' OGC ^
 addresses any .new legal „ issues and. .that OBCA has an opportunity to
 address enforcement issues. .All issues typically addressed  within
 BPA's Work Group process will be  aired during the development  of
 the standard rather after the standard is ready to be proposed  or
 promulgated.

      In general, BPA with its State/local partners would take about
 2  years to  develop  a MACT  standard  through  the adopt-a-MACT
 process.  Six months to collect and analyze data; 4 months to draft
 the preamble/regualtion and obtain BPA  concurrences; and  12  months
 to  respond to  comments and  obtain  final  concurrences by the
Administrator of EPA.  The plan is to move to proposal as quickly
 as possible.   With this approach, the partners have the time  to
publish a  notice  of supplemental  data  if  additional comments are
 needed on material developed after the initial proposal.

-------
Note

To:  MACT Partnerships Management Task Force

From:  Scott Mathias. Holly Reid, Dave Svendsgaard

Date:  August 18. 1994


Here is our attempt to identify and flesh-out the roles and
responsibilities of various potential partners in a matrix
format.  We have prefaced the R&R matrix with a brief statement
of program themes and principles that we generated, and also by
some initial thoughts on Partnership Agreements and a Partnership
•Primer."

In the R&R matrix we did not identify specific partners for
several tasks in the Adopt-A-MACT/Share-A-MACT process because
the tasks that partners perform will vary from project to
project.  We chose instead to identify "Lead" and "Support"
partners, and assigned appropriate responsibilities to them.
Depending upon the nature of the project, EPA-HQ's
responsibilities can range from "doing it all" to "doing nothing
but guide."  Our group's efforts wexe complicated by not knowing
whether industry and enviro groups (i.e., non-regulators) could
contribute to certain MACT development tasks (e.g., draft rule
and preamble).  The matrix will undoubtably be revised as issues
like this are addressed by counsel.  We generally do not view
many of the role definitions as set in concrete,  but rather we
view them as guidelines to be adapted to each project.

We urge that a process diagram of some sort be married to the
roles and responsibilities matrix to make it clearer.  We also
urge that additional thought be given to determining the content
of Partnership Agreements and the value of a "Primer."

-------
      The following  two  topics were summarized  by  this  group  as
 important activities  that would  further MACT Partnerships.
                    Partnership Agreement (PA)


 The PA is the  cornerstone of Adopt-A-MACT projects and  is a
 potentially useful tool for Share-A-MACT projects.  The purpose
 of  the PA is to outline expectations about all partner's
 participation  in MACT standard development, and provide guidance
 to  parties contributing to the process.

 Components:

      1.   Work  Plan - task outline with major milestones and
      delivery  dates  (see Susan Wyatfs notes on Share-A-MACT)

      2.   Outline of Roles and Responsibilities - narrative
      description and matrix

      3.   Partnership Consent (see OGC verbiage)

      4.   Appendices  (Infrastructure Items)
           Guidance on handling CBI
           Guidance on Funding,  Staffing (IPAs), etc.
           Guidance on Communication Planning
                     MACT Partnership Primer

A MACT Partnerships primer would involve a 1 or 2 day classroom
exercise , led by EPA-HQ personnel (possibly a -training
specialist) .^The exercise would be designed 'to provide a  crash
course^on the "Intricacies **b£ ttACT/ standards ' development . . It-
would be less a •how to* course, which can be found in the M&£X
            Marmai . - •• JBTUS more *of a "hitchhiker's guide -that
includes interactive discussions on avoiding MACT development
pitfalls and fostering innovative thinking.  A comprehensive
primer is important for Adopt- A-MACT projects, and certain pieces
of the primer may be important for Share- A-MACT projects.

-------
                  HACT PARTNERS  PROGRAM THEMES


The Agency seeks to combine limited resources and form
partnerships to ensure the environmental goals of the Clean Air
Act are achieved in a timely manner.  Partners include
STAPPA/ALAPCO, individual State governments, affected companies
and their associated trade groups, environmental protection
groups, and the public.   The role of partners is to enrich the
Agency's MACT development process by identifying and
incorporating expertise and data that is not readily available to
the Agency.  The Agency's role is to empower partners to provide
expertise and data to the Agency in a way that furthers the goal
of environmental protection, provide guidance to partners on
channeling expertise and developing and collecting data, and to
make the best regulatory decisions possible based on the
expertise and data supplied by partners.
                K&CT PARTNERS PROGRAM PRINCIPLES
     Identify and involve new partners -- hand off or share
     responsibility with willing,  capable public and private
     partners, (from OAR Vision Statement)

     Empower partners -- provide tools,  guidance, and
     coordination necessary to make partnerships effective.

     Work with stakeholders early -- agree on real measures of
     success and accountability, (from OAR Vision Statement)

     Agency accountability -- the Agency retains control of
     •inherently governmental functions" including the final
     decision-making authority on all ..regulations y"^ policy
     guidance.

     Seek creative ways to achieve environmental goals --
     innovative regulatory development processes, regulations,
     and compliance strategies.

-------
Ranking of 7-year MACT Standards for Presumptive MACT Determination
2S~Jul-94
DRAFT
Source Category
Butadiene Dlmert Production
Fume Silica Production
Chromium Chemicals Manufacturing
Chlorothalonll Production i
Primary Lead Smelting
Tordon (tm) Acid Production
Sodium Pentachlorophenate Production
Oacthal (tm) Production
Chloroneb Production
Captafol Production
4.6-Dlnltro-O-Cresol Production
Polycarbonates Production
Acrylic Flbers/Modacrytlc Fibers
Production
Acetal Resins Production
Primary Copper Smelting
Captan Production
ffef
Companlea
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3

3
• of,
Fecffltike
1
3
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
8
3
for
State*
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
6
3

Statefs)
LA
IUAL.NY
NC.TX
TX
MO(2),MT
TX


VW

TX
AL,IN,TX
(2)
AL.FU8C
WV.TX.AL
AZOV MM
(2)
CT.OHQA
Scoring 0 aed
Faeflttlea
25
20
20
25
20
25
26
25
25
25
25
16
15
20
10
20
for the
Mat**
.25
15
20
25
20
25
25
26
25
26
25
16
16
16
10
16
Development of the Combined Scores
Simplicity
25
20
16
10
16
10
10
10
1Q
10
10
20
25
16
20
10
Diversity
of Control
16
20
16
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
16
16
20
10
10
Regulatory
Status
15
25
25
20
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
16
15
25
20
Combined
Score
(weighted)
21.5
19.75
19.75
19.25
19.25
1925
19.25
19.25
19.25
19.25
19.25
17.25
17
16.25
15.75
155

-------
DRAFT
Source Category
4-Chloro-2-Mathylphenoxyacetlo Add
Production
2.4-0 Salts and Esters Production
Nylon 6 Production
Stainless Steel Manufacturing - Electric
Arc Furnace (EAF) Operation
Primary Aluminum Production
Wood Treatment
Chlorine Production
Polyether Polyols Production
Phenolic Resins Production
Amlno Resins Production
Portland Cement Manufacturing
Non-Stainless Steel Manufacturing -
Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) Operation
Steel Pickling • HCI Process
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Mineral Wool Production
Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production
Flexible Polyuretrtane Foem Production
Secondary Aluminum Production
for
COfnpMIMv
3
4
7

10

26
22
34
42
60

60
7
10

60
60
for
PadTMM
3
4
7
IB
23
60
60
40
73
67
110
77
100
28
18
10,000
130
300

for
AA^A^A AeV*A*4A%
BU1WV Dun*|V|
3 Ml, MO, IL
4 Ml
6 KY, NH, SC
(3),TX,VW
7
10
10
26
16
20
20
40
33
20
16
11
48
40
40
Scoring Used for the Development of the Combined Scores
Faefnttes States
20 16
16 16
10 10
6 10
6 6
0 6
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
6 6
0 0
0 0
0 0
Simplicity
10
10
15
15
20
15
20
16
16
15
16
15
15
10
5
5
S
5
Diversity
of Control
10
10
15
20
5
15
15
15
20
15
15
10
20
15
15
20
20
6
Regulatory
Status
20
20
20
15
20
20
20
20
15
15
15
15
10
15
10
15
15
15
Combined
Scrrc
(weighted)
15.6
14.75
14
125
11.75
11
10.5
9.5
8.75
825
8.25
7.75
7.5
7.25
7.25
6.75
875
525

-------
                                                DRAFT
Source Category
for
CompmlM
• of
Paemtlee
for
Staiee
Statefe)
Scoring Used for the Development of the Combined Scores
Diversity Regulatory
FaetntJM State* Simplicity of Control Statu*
Combined
Score
(weighted)
Pharmaceuticals Production
Oil end Natural Oat Production
Petroleum Refineries - Catalytic
Cracking (Fluid and Other) Unite and
Sulfur Plant Units
Pulp & Paper Production
Sodium Cyanide Production (HON)
Cyanurlc Chloride Production (HON)
Hydrogen Cyanide Production (HON)
30 100
WO'
160
350
6 e
1 1
11 16
40
35
20
36
4 NV. TN, TX
(3),WY
1 AL
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
16
10
6
0
0
0
20
10
6
0
0
0
0
5
5
325
05
0
0
0
(HON). Denotes fait this Sourc* Cifopwy ht» 0«M tdtM to AeMrfapplMM* cftemfeef poducflora tut are autyecf to ft* Huanfcut Orgtnte NESHAP.

-------
                                                     DRAFT
                  Scoring Criteria for Prospective Adopt- and Share-a-MACT Projects
                                             (weighting factor In parenthesis)
25
20
ft Sources (15}      i State* Y30J

    1                 1
   2-3
                 ShnpHdty (20}

                 Very simple (Info avail,
                 helpftil trade asso, existing
                 state reg In place, low cost
                 for control, etc.)

                 Fairly simple
                              Diversity
                              of Control flO)

                              None (only one
                               control option)
                               Limited (two or
                               three option
                               sets)
                  Regulatory
                  Development Status (25)

                  Upstarted
                  Early stages
                   (preliminary
                   info gathering)
15
   4-6
 3-4
Probably simple
Moderate (four to   Completed info
 six options)         gathering
 10
05
  13-25
                     5-7
8-12
                 .Unknown
Probably not simple
                                                                              Unknown
Probably diverse
Started
 writing
 BID

Pre-proposai
 (reg alternatives
 selected)
00
   >25
                 Definitely not simple (multimedia   Very diverse
                  cluster, data unavail, high cost    (over 10 options)
                  for control, hostile trade org)
                                                 Proposed

-------
           Appendix B
Administrative Effort and Paperwork
               B-l

-------
   SUMMARY OF GROUP 2
       DISCUSSION
       "FORUM ON
RECORDKEEPING/REPORTING"

-------
PURPOSE OF GROUP

  - ISSUE OF RECORDS IDENTIFIED IN
  DECEMBER MEETING

  - DISCUSS GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR
  RECORDKEEPING,  REPORTING,
  MONITORING

  -- DISCUSSED TWO CASE EXAMPLES
  ON POTENTIAL TO EMIT

  - DISCUSSED FOLLOWUP ACTIVITIES

-------
       GENERAL PRINCIPLES
"80/20" PRINCIPLE

  - TRULY AIM AT GETTING 100% OF
  RECORDS WE ASK FOR?

EMPHASIS ON OUTREACH AND --
TRADEOFF BETWEEN RESOURCES
SPENT FOR THIS AND RESOURCES
SPENT REVIEWING REPORTS...

CONCEPT OF "TIERING" BASED ON
SIZE, PROXIMITY TO STANDARD, HOW
CLOSED IS EXPOSED POPULATION,
ACTUAL EMISSIONS

ENV. RESULTS MAY DEPEND MORE ON
WHAT'S EMITTED THAN HOW MANY
PEOPLE COMPLY WITH RECORDS AND
REPORTS

-------
 "GENERAL PRINCIPLES" DISCUSSION
"EXAMPLES" DISCUSSION

  NEED FOR RECORDS: "OLD WAY"
  INEFFECTIVE. FOR EXAMPLE, TO
  ENFORCE MUST REQUEST TEST.
  (OECA, REGION 9 EXAMPLES)

  CONCERN:
  RECORDKEEPING/REPORTING
  SEEMED TO BE AIMED AT
  COVERING STATE/LOCAL
  SHORTFALLS MORE THAN REAL
  NEED. TRUST/PARTNERSHIP ISSUE.

  EXAMPLE... COMPLIANCE 5
  MONTHS LATER BASED ON CEM
  LAG TIME..

-------
    GENERAL PRINCIPLES (CONT)

RECOGNIZE POLITICAL PROBLEMS OF
TOO MANY REPORTS AND RECORDS,
SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS ARE
HEARD BY DECISION-MAKERS.
"COMMON-SENSE" INITIATIVE
INDICATIVE OF EPA DESIRE TO
REDUCE BURDEN???

NEED TO LOOK AT NATURE OF
VIOLATION... WHEN DO "PAPER
VIOLATIONS" ACTUALLY HELP
REDUCE EMISSIONS...

-------
            GOALS:

CREDIBLE ENFORCEMENT

100% COMPLIANCE????? ANY WAY TO
SEE IF MEETING THIS GOAL IS NOT
BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE ENV. RESULTS

  MATCH REQUIREMENTS WITH
  ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO
  DETERMINE COMPLIANCE AND
  ACHIEVE RESULTS

FOSTER VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE...
USE RECORDS AS TOOLS TO HELP
SOURCES UNDERSTAND STANDARDS...
SOURCE MUST SEE BENEFITS OF
COMPLIANCE...MAY BE ABLE TO
DEVELOP WAYS TO PROMOTE THIS
"GREAT PRINTER" LABEL...

-------
   PROGRAM INTEGRATION POINTS

NEED PROGRAM INTEGRATION EFFORT
TO ENSURE THAT REPORTS MAKE
SENSE IN TANDEM WITH PART 70
REPORTS...

112(1) ISSUE... CAN AGENCY
DEMONSTRATE PRACTICAL
IMPLEMENTATION ACHIEVES RESULTS
WITH LESS REPORTS AND RECORDS???

-------
            REPORTS

REPORTS: IF ACTIVE INSPECTION
PROGRAM, MORE FLEXIBILITY...

CONTINUED REPORTING SHOULD
"BACK OFF" DEPENDING ON
PROBABILITY OF CONTINUED
VIOLATIONS

SHOULD PROMOTE ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATION OF REPORTS BY
SOURCES, AND ELECTRONIC
OVERSIGHT BY EPA. CAN HELP
PUBLIC REVIEW REPORTS, TOO...

CONCERN: PUNISHING SELF-
REPORTED VIOLATIONS. DISCOURAGE
EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION ON
WHAT MUST DO TO COMPLY?

REPORTS:  CLARITY, BREVITY, REPORT
BOTTOM LINE... STANDARD

-------
REPORTING FORM
            RECORDS

PRACTICAL ISSUES...FREEBOARD
MEASUREMENT VS. DRAWING LINE...

FREQUENCY OF RECORDS: DEPENDS
ON VARIABILITY OF PROCESS

5 YEAR RECORDS... FELT NOT
IMPORTANT IF ACTED ON MUCH
SOONER - DEPENDS OF LEVEL OF
IMPLEMENTATION RESOURCES

-------
           FOLLOWUP:

NEED FOR TEAM APPROACH TO
COORDINATING
RECORDKEEPING/REPORTING ISSUES
W/STATES AND REGIONS: SEVERAL
VOLUNTEERS

TECHNICAL SOURCE CATEGORY-
SPECIFIC GUIDANCE ON PTE
CALCULATIONS

ONCE-MAJOR ALWAYS MAJOR ISSUE

EPA STATE VISITS IN TANDEM WITH
STATES

COMMUNICATE ISSUES ON TTN

-------
         Appendix C
Communications and Delegations
            C-l

-------
                      Delegation/Communication
                      Interactive Resources Subgroup
      The Resource subgroup consisted of seven persons, including the moderator.
The charge of the resources subgroup was to identify implementation resource issues
and needs facing State and Local agencies during air toxic program development and
the process of delegation of federal responsibilities.  The items and issues discussed
during the breakout session are Ksted below:

      1.    Program Planning

                  Participants identified the development of air toxic programs as an
                  area of concern. It was a consensus of the group that proper
                  emphasis was not being placed on the development of program in
                  the states. Due to the newness of air toxics  regulation, adequate
                  attention and priority was not being devoted to air toxics
                  regulation. Management of the SfL agencies are more concerned
                  with the development of Title V permit programs.  The S/L
                  managers have placed a low priority on air  toxics; thus, the
                  program are generally under staffed and financed. It was noted
                  that in many agencies, the personnel assigned to address air toxics
                  are serving in duel capacities and sometimes as many as three
                  different program areas.

                  Participants slated that EPA needs to reassess what each S/L
                  agency commitment to air toxics to determine and outline the
                  program's ability to effectively implement and enforce provisions
                  of title III.  The participants further stated that EPA should
                  conduct meeting with S/L managers at the Director level to
                  ascertain the S/L'/ vision of title lit and its implementation
                  thereof. It was conveyed that EPA should emphasize a "holistic"
                  approach to air toxics program development.  Such a program
                  would include: inspections,  enforcement, training, necessary
                  materials/tools, and standard operating procedures.
                  Additionally, EPA should provide StLs with  resource analysis to
                  assist in determining what implementation activities would be
                  necessary. The resource analysis should include a determination
                  of "adequate" resources which would support early delegation of
                  implementation activities. Equally, there should be well defined
                  procedures for program implementation.

-------
2.    Training

            The EPA needs to enhance its training program regarding tilte III.
            Participants felt that the satellite training system was an extremely
            appropriate mechanism to present training courses; however,
            training opportunities should be more frequent and more specific.
            Courses presenting a  "step-by-Hep" process is the preferred mode
            of training.  The tele-course  on dry cleaning was cited as an
            example of the most useful format.  Actual on*site, equipment
            specific, and hands on experiences are more beneficial to staff
            personnel.  Group members stated EPA should develop a training
            certification program for owners and operators which must be
            attended by facility personnel subject to a particular standard.
            This effort wilt ensure facility owners and operators are abreast of
            the affecting regulations prior to compliance andJor inspections.
            The program can either be sponsored by EPA ofon-stte by facility
            training coordinators.

            Secondly, the group stated that the satellite programming should
            be enhanced. The traditional "talking head" approach was the
            least effective mechanism of presenting information.  EPA should
            seek more expertise in programming development. The employ
            persons with "quasi" professional skills and experience in acting
            and  group presentations, in addition to EPA technical and
            program development staff.  Finally, future courses should focus
            on the "nut & bolts" of implementation when addressing specific
            standards and not so much of the background and regulatory
            development process.

3.    Source IdentfflcattonlLocation

            The  process of self identification will not work. EPA along with
            the S/Ls should devise a mechanism to adequately identify sources.
            The  development of an SOP on source Identification process and a
            listing of potential databases or agencies/offices which could
            facilitate source Identification should be produced. There should
            be some mechanism of effecting quality assurance on lists provided
            by EPA during standard development, ft was the understanding of
            the group that EPA had entered into a contract with one  of the
            EPA contractors for the development of a list of the 174 source
            categories and a correlation between the SIC and SCC codes far
            sources affected by the standards.  This document andi'or luting
            should be provided to the S/L agencies as expeditiousfy  as

-------
      possible. Further, EPA should make every effort to assist S/L
      agencies in the location and identification of affected source in
      each Region.

      The EPA should enter into a cooperative agreement with other
      governmental offices (e,$., IKS) which require facilities to report
      SIC codes when filing and!or satisfying annual requirements (e.g.,
      tax. returns).  This will eventually create a database ofatt source
      which EPA, State, and Local agencies could utilise during source
      identification processes. EPA and/or S/L should develop a
      database management system to house such information. Such a
      system could be integrated with the graphic information system to
      assist in source location.  Are there areas where duplication of
      effort is a problem?

Miscellaneous Issues

      (I)   EPA should initiate a national effort to identify and develop
            a compilation of testing methods for the monitoring and
            sampling of hazardous air pollutants. EPA should develop
            and conduct the necessary training to appraise S/L agencies
            of the newly developed methods.

      (2)   EPA should provide more intense and more frequent AIRS
            training at different locales throughout the Regions.

      (3)   There should be more integration between title III and title
            V. The two groups seemingly do not communicate enough.
            There are a number of implementation issue affecting both
            programs to warrant more interaction.   Common interests
            and needs are not being shared and/or translated.

-------
          DELEGATION/COMMUNICATION INTERACTIVE SESSION

PROBLEM:   State/local agencies may be able to demonstrate that a
rule (or state authorities  submittal)  will result  in equivalent
emission reductions but cannot obtain approval because they cannot
meet the minimum  compliance  and  enforcement  requirements  as
specified in  Subpart  E,  the MACT  standard,  and  the  General
Provisions.

BACKGROUND:    In particular,  Section 63.93  (Rule  Substitution)
allows a state/local agency to seek  approval for a  rule that is
different than a federal  rule.  In this submittal, the state/local
agency must demonstrate that implementation and enforcement of the
state rule results in as great or greater emission reductions for
each affected source as  the implementation and enforcement of the
otherwise applicable federal rule.

A  potential   obstacle  to  the delegation of  authority is  the
interpretation of adequate  enforcement  mechanisms.   Alternative
enforcement  mechanisms,  taken   in  conjunction  with  the  other
provisions of  a rule, can result in emission reductions that are at
least as stringent as the federal rule.

The issue then  becomes  defining  the  purpose of  the enforcement
provisions.   EPA may choose to maintain  enforcement provisions to
ensure  that  the   delegated  standard  meets   minimum  federal
requirements  for enforceability.   In  this case,  the EPA's risk is
minimized relative to the ability to take enforcement action based
on past violations.

Conversely,  they  may choose to  accept  the  state/local proposed
enforcement provisions.   In this  case,  the EPA must depend on the
state/local agency enforcement provisions.  In the event that the
delegation is subsequently  withdrawn for any reason, the  EPA could
then impose the federal  enforcement provisions.

Examples:  Five year recordkeeping requirements  for area sources
versus  an alternative two  year   retention  or source inspection
whichever is  greater, where the  alternative is  justified on the
basis of other rule/program provisions  (such as a source-category
specific training  program).

Recommendations:

Key staff from the Office of General Counsel, Office of Enforcement
and  Compliance  Assurance,  Office of  Air  Quality  Planning and
Standards, and  other key EPA offices  should meet  and  develop  a
policy statement  regarding this  issue.    Key  STAPPA/ALAPCO staff
should be consulted as early as possible in the process.

Lead: Karen Blanchard-OAQPS

Timing:  Meetings by 11/1/94; Decision by 12/1/94.

RELATED QUESTIONS:  Can the state/local agencies adopt and submit
for equivalency a substitute General Provisions Rule that  could
provide   an   avenue  for  approval   of  acceptable  alternative
administrative provisions?

Should/does Section 112(1)  impose any additional  requirements over

-------
those specified  in  the applicable MACT  standard,  the applicable
provisions of the General Provisions, and the Title V program?

-------
          DELEGATION/COMMUNICATION INTERACTIVE SESSION

PROBLEM:   There currently  lacks  a defined process  for  resolving
issues that aay arise with delegation requests.  This may result in
unnecessary  delays  in  approval  of  section  112(1)  equivalency
requests.

BACKGROUND:    Currently,  the  EPA  is  completing  the  necessary
documentation  to delegate  authority to  the  Regional Offices to
sign-off on equivalency requests.  However, EPA Headquarters (OGC,
OECA, OAQPS,  OSWER) will  retain the authority to  disapprove the
request within a specified time period.

The EPA is also completing the development of a formal process for
the review of formal  Section 112(1) submittals  within  specified
time limits.   However, there is no such  process  for the informal
resolution of  issues.

Section 112(1)  submittals are being prepared and submitted to the
EPA Regional Offices.  As these submittals are prepared, issues are
likely to be identified  which  will require the  input of  the EPA
Headquarters.  In particular, the first submittals are likely to be
carefully reviewed because they may set  precedents for subsequent
submittals.

It would be useful to have a defined informal process for resolving
delegation issues.   This may  involve  a tiered  approach  whereby
issues are resolved  at  a staff  level,  if possible,  followed by
management resolution if necessary.  In  any case, the state/local
agencies should be allowed to participate in the resolution process
at an early stage.

EXAMPLES:  Top-down T-BACT  versus case-by-case  MACT; alternative
enforcement provisions.

RECOMMENDATION:    The  EPA  should define,  with  input  from  key
STAPPA/ALAPCO staff,  a process to resolve delegation issues, in a
timely manner,  prior to the formal Section 112(1) submittal.

Lead:  Sheila Milliken

Timeframe:  Draft prepared by 12/1/94.  Final by 2/1/95.

-------
                           PARKING LOT

1.  Develop and/or make available resources for developing Subpart
E submittals.
     - Two case studies have been  completed  and  the results have
     not been disseminated to stakeholders.
     - Recommend that model  Subpart E submittals  are developed.
     Gear the model submittals for those source categories or 112
     provisions that we  expect S/L submittals.
     - Recommend that  some forum/database  is  made  available to
     allow Subpart E submittals to be accessed by all stakeholders.

2.   Are the Subpart E  provisions  adequate  to allow  risk  based
programs to demonstrate  equivalency.
     - This was discussed at  great length during reg development.
     - We may not know until  a submittal is  evaluated.

3.   Is  there enough time  for  S/Ls to evaluate  a  provision,  and
decide whether or not a rule  substitution is needed, before this
provision must be written into part 70 permit?
     - Can the effective date of the MACT be delayed?

4.  Can Subpart E authority be used to allow S/Ls use Title I/SIP
VOC  provisions  to  substitute  for  MACTs;   or  allow  S/Ls  to
demonstrate  that Title  I/SIP VOC  provisions can  substitute  for
MACTs.
     - I.e., Stage  I Gasoline MACT requirements and similar  SIP
     controls.
     - If a source is subject to both provisions (SIP & MACT), do
     both have to be written  into part 70 submittal?

5.  Clarify MACT standards as far as area sources requirements are
concerned.
     - Language or tables  (could be similar  to General Provision
     comparison table)  should be included that clearly delineate
     enforcement, MR&R,  part  70 requirements.

6.  Can there be State  only requirements in  Subpart E submittals?
     -  If  a  S/L  submits  a  regulation  that  includes  other
     requirements,  information, or whatever  that they do not want
     as part of the submittal; thus, federally enforceable.

7.   Can  Subpart E  submittals be used to approve S/L multi-media
regulations?
     - I.e., a state may submit a rule that  incorporates MACT and
     RCRA air requirements.
     - NY developed a rule  that  includes  dry cleaner  and OSHA
     requirements.

8.  Is 63.94 broad enough for S/L needs?
     -  Is this provision  flexible enough  to  allow non-part 70
     sources/programs to be approved.

-------
9.   Can  Subpart E  approve  innovative controls  substituting for
MACT?
     - Is this a function for General Provisions?

10. What  happens if a  MACT standard is  revised after  a  112(1)
submittal has been approved?
     - Does the 112(1)  approval need to be revisited/resubmitted?
     - What is the  time period  for  implementing and/or approving
     the 112(1) submittal after the  amendment of the MACT?

11.  Can  Subpart E  be used  to approve  a submittal of a  State
regulation that  contains  requirements for more than  one  source
category covered by more than one MACT?
     - If a State has  one rule that covers both the HON and the
     Petroleum Refinery MACT requirements.

-------
                  KACT Oavalopaant/CoaBunlcatlon

                     Draft Workgroup Suaaary
                       Air Toxics Workshop


     In addressing tha topic of Coaaunioations/Oalagations, our
workgroup decided to concentrate on tha MACT developaent.  It was
agreed that an efficient and workable coaaunication network is
vital to the success of the developaantal process.   Headquarters,
ths regions, the statee and local agencies must all coordinate
their efforts together.  Every link in the chain should be
involved, from the inspector in ths field to the directors in
Washington, D. C.I

     One of tha aoat common complaints is that important
inforaation doean't alwaya reach the ataff level people who are
the aoat actively involved with day-to-day business.  Ons reason
ia that the naaea and duties of specific people in the network
are not known.  For axaaple, soaaone at OAQP8 aay want to aend
some information on inspecting dry cleaning facilities to
inspectors at a local agency.  Mot knowing specific names, the
information la sent to the agency director.   Zt aay or aay not
reach the inapectora for whoa it waa intended.   Sending the
inforaation diractly to tha specific parson would eliminate this
problem.

     To this end,  one of the recommendations of this workgroup is
to establish a nation-wide directory of staff contact people who
work with air toxica.   This list would include EPA, state and
local paraonnal.   Zt could be designed to give quick and eaay
access to deaired Inforaation.   The liat would need to be updated
semi-annually or annually to keep it current.   The liat oould be
located on an electronic bulletin board,  such as TTN or MAPS.
It waa aentioned that auoh a directory already axiata on NATICH,
but ia not maintained very well.   A serious effort could be aada
to upgrade the NATICH directory and then use it for thia purpose.

     Although the directory is a good idea,  it will not be vary
usaful to someone without tha computer capability to access tha
bulletin boards.   We need to know  those agencies/people who are
presently unable to access ths bulletin boards.  They would
probably mostly be local agencies that have (mall budgets.  Whan
any inforaation is aada available to these agencies, it must be
in hard copy fora.

     Zn light of tha above discussion, another recommendation of
this workgroup is to conduct a survey of all the state and local
ageneiee. A standard questionnaire oould be developed and sent to
all the regiona.  They in turn oould send oopias to all  of their
etate and local agencies.  First, we could aak for a complete
list of all agency personnel dealing with air toxica.  Thie
includes name, addreas, phone number, fax number and area of
expertiss.  Second, we could ask them if they are  able to acceee

-------
the bulletin boards.  This sane survey could be used to gather
Information regarding the KACT development procaes.  The
following are additional questions that could be asXed:

     • Are there any source categories that are prevalent in your
       state or locality?
     • Does your agency have any  special expertise with certain
       source categories?
     • Do you have any aourca identification information to
       share?
     • Any interest in volunteering for MACT advisory groups,
       vhera all parties have an equal aay?
     • Any interest in an ZPA exchange for short periods of time?
     • Do you have reasonable access to a satsllite dish for
       training purposes?
     • Would you be interested in regularly scheduled Title III
       teleconference calls between state, local and EPA
       personnel?

     The information obtained through this survey,  especially the
personnel directory, would be available to anyone interested.  It
should greatly help all parties involved to communicate more
efficiently.   Effective communication between all levels of
state, local and federal personnel is essential.   The result
would be better MACT standards development and implementation.
Hopefully,  the above recommendation* will help us achieve this
goal.

-------
            Appendix D
Accidental Release Prevention Program
                 D-l

-------
           Summary Section 112(r) Interactive Session
                      Air  Toxics Workshop


     Approximately 25-30  attended the breakout session  on
section 112(r).   Overall  the  session appeared to be  successful
and provided  an  opportunity for State and local air  officials to
give input on the contents  of the supplemental notice and  to
discuss implementation concerns.

PART I  In general the comments on the supplemental  rule were:

     - EPA should allow State participation on the workgroup
     itself;

     - Concern regarding  the  modeling for worst case scenario;

     - General support for  the development of a "modified  green
     book approach" which would simplify the worst case
     determination (this  would probably need to be proposed in
     supplemental notice);

     - Strong support for using a tiering approach,  although
     there was not a consensus to a particular one - little
     support  appeared for just modifying specific components;

     - Little negative comment from States with regard  to
     integrating section  112 (r) with part 70 as long as the
     States are  still given the flexibility to have  an  alternate
     State agency undertake the actual implementation;

     - Regional  officials were still disagreeing with  regard to
     approval of part 70  program  and indicated many  of  the
     Regions  still had not  identified who would be in  charge of
     various  aspects of section 112(r) i.e., program approval,
     oversight,  implementation in some cases, and enforcement;

     - Regions and States generally supported trying to
     consolidate the audits required by section 112  (r)  and the
     inspections under part 70 for the permitted  sources;  some
     thought  the auditing system  should stand alone  separate from
     part 70.

     - They also strongly supported establishing  reporting
     requirements in the  rule, similar  to ARIP, which compel the
     source to provide  information in instances  of  a "significant
     accidental  release."  This  information would not be used  for
     a substitute for the emergency response notification but
     would allow EPA and the State to obtain accurate post-
     accident information.   This would provide a mechanism  to
      track accidents,  trends, and evaluate the program;

-------
     -  State  and Regional  Offices  agreed that  notification should
     not duplicate  requirements  in SARA.  Use  of  a term other
     than "notification" was  suggested.

PART II  This session focused on problem areas, resources,
liability,  development of  expertise, and program  development.
Key comments  follow:

                           Resources

     -  State  and local programs  need to know the  costs of
     implementation the requirements.  What type  of resource
     levels are  needed?

     -  Title  V fees should be used for title V sources.
     Section  105 grants for the  non part 70 sources.

     -  State  and local programs  want guaranteed funds to ram p up
     program  and for continued activities.

     -  New approach to resource  allocation needed.

     -  EPA and States should  make  OMB and Congress aware of the
     need for section 105  block  grants for section 112(r).

     -  Several States with operating programs  have self funding
     mechanisms  which are  based  on the amount  of  chemical onsite,
     i.e.,  Delaware and New Jersey.


                      Developing Expertise*

     -  Areas  that demand greatest  challenge  - - training which
     teaches  what should be happening at plants doesn't exist.

     -  Inconsistencies with models used for worst case and
     offsite  consequence analyses  need to be  worked out.

     -  EPA should develop  a national  code to  avoid accidental
     releases.

     -  EPA needs to define what  it takes to  review a risk
     management  plan/program.

     -  Guidance  from EPA to sources regarding compliance is
     needed.

     -  Guidance  from EPA to implementing agency is needed.

     -  Expertise should not be element by element.

     -  Identifying responsibilities for  implementing agencies
     first.

-------
     - OSHA has training for process  safety  inspecting which may
     be useful.

     - RISK COMMUNICATORS NEEDED!


* Note:  Views depended on perception of  scope  of  program.   Some
States believed that State and local  officials  should be spending
most of their time at source.   Others believed  that RMP could
provide important  information for  community  planning.


                            Liability

     - States understand that they have no legal  liability.   They
     believe they  will be sued anyway.  They requested the
     Federal Government provide letters of identification.

     - perceived liability is a major obstacle.

     - No approval mechanism when  RPM received  but acceptance and
     review means  implicit approval.

     - Accidental  release prevention  differs from other CAA
     programs due  to acute nature  - immediate deaths and
     injuries.

          - Cost of suing may reduce  lawsuits possibility of
     frivolous suits.

     - Merits of program outweigh  problems.

     - Indemnification of State and locals who  receive delegation
     requested.


                Program Development/Communication

     - Dovetail reviews of section 112(r) with part 70.

     - Requirements may not be implemented by air agency.

     - MOA between State agencies  necessary.

      - Can  105 money be transferred to non-air agency?

-------