April 17, 1997
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Ms. Lydia Wegman
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
MD-10
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

Dear Ms. Wegman:

       This letter provides the Air Resources Board staff's comments on the material presented at the March 26, 1997, Stakeholders Meeting on the "Reinvention of Subpart E." Below are several important comments related to the reinvention proposal. Please also note that our comments of January 31, 1997, are still applicable.

       Criteria and Required Demonstration of Equivalency: We remain concerned that the reinvention process has not adequately addressed the issue of what criteria will be used and what demonstrations will be required for an equivalency showing. We were hopeful that the preamble language would provide details on criteria and required demonstrations for an equivalency showing, but it is not clear that it will. We believe that this an extremely critical element to the reinvention process. Without realistic criteria and appropriate demonstration requirements, the equivalency process will likely remain unworkable.

       Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements and Work Practice Standards: Our major area of concern is the flexibility provided to state and local agencies for establishing alternative monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) requirements, and work practice standards. The material provided indicated that you do not plan to make any change to the regulatory language of Subpart E concerning MRR requirements and work practice standards. It was clear from the stakeholders' comments at both the Washington and Los Angeles meetings that this a significant issue among the state and local agencies and regulated industry. The November 26, 1996, policy memo concerning MRR does not, in our opinion, provide the necessary flexibility. It also does not provide any criteria or demonstration requirements implementing the approach. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you amend the regulatory language in Subpart E to allow state and local agencies flexibility to develop alternative MRR requirements and work practice standards.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Ms. Lydia Wegman
April 17, 1997
Page Two
 
 

       Equivalency by Permit: We support U.S. EPA's proposal to add a section to Subpart E addressing equivalency by permit. We believe that the current proposal is unnecessarily restrictive. We believe the proposal should address area sources as well as major sources. We recommend that the equivalency by permit option allow area sources to use state operating permits as the equivalency vehicle. Equivalency by permit should not be limited to categories with only a few sources. It should be applicable whether or not the source is subject to a similar state rule. The process should allow for approval of alternative requirements for a category of sources via a permit template. Further, we believe that a 30-day equivalency review period for the U.S. EPA and public is appropriate for area sources.

       Timing: We are very concerned about the timing of the revisions to Subpart E. According to the information provided, you do not anticipate final approval of Subpart E amendments until July 1998. This would mean that the earliest a program could be approved under the revised section 63.94 would likely be February 1999. This date will make the smooth integration of the federal standards with the existing state and district criteria and toxic pollutant regulations extremely difficult. Therefore, it is imperative that the current efforts to find workable interim solutions continue. We further recommend that you move forward on new Subpart E sections addressing Equivalency by Permit and Alternative Testing Methods in advance of the other amendments.

       We appreciate the U.S. EPA's efforts to work with us in finding acceptable solutions to integration issues and we are committed to continue working with you. We are also committed to achieving the environmental benefits of the federal air toxics program in a way that includes reasonable, understandable, and practically enforceable compliance and enforcement measures being imposed on the affected businesses.

       If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 445-0650. If your staff has specific questions concerning our comments on the position papers, please call Mr. Dan Donohoue at (916) 322-8277.

                                                                       Sincerely,
 
 
 

                                                                      /s/
                                                                      Peter D.Venturini, Chief
                                                                      Stationary Source Division
 
 
 
 
 







 
 
 

Ms. Lydia Wegman
April 17, 1997
Page Three
 
 

cc:   Mr. Dan Donohoue, Manager
       Technical Analysis Section
       Stationary Source Division
 

       Ms. Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator
       United States Environmental Protection Agency
       Region IX
       75 Hawthorne Street
       San Francisco, California 94105

       Mr. David Howekamp, Director
       Air Division
       United States Environmental Protection Agency
       Region IX
       75 Hawthorne Street
       San Francisco, California 94105