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?
------- |