Minutes of the CAPCOA Title III Subcommittee Meeting June 12, 1996 Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of this meeting was to address issues related to Title III of the federal Clean Air Act Amendments. Attendees: (see attached) Handouts: * Committees, Subcommittees, and Workgroups Working on Air Toxics Flowchart * CAPCOA -- MACT Implementation Assistance Program Handout * Comments from U.S. EPA, Region IX, on the draft delegation package that the ARB intends to send to the Air Pollution Control Districts in California * Amended draft delegation package * Questions and answers for Subparts H and I of Part 63 * Fact Sheet -- Final Air Toxics Regulation for the Printing and Publishing Industry * Fact Sheet -- Final Air Toxics Rule for Polyethylene Polymer and Styrene-based Thermoplastic Polymers Production * Fact Sheet -- Amendments to Regulations Governing Equivalent Emission Limitations by Permit * Fact Sheet -- Revisions to the Initial Source Category List and Schedule for Standards * Fact Sheet -- Final Air Regulations for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills * The 1995 Section 112 Implementation Workshops: Summary of Issues and Responses Items: 1. Report of Action Items from the March 21, 1996 Meeting A. Districts and Industry should decide if anyone is interested in joining the MACT Implementation Assistance Program workgroups, and select any categories to be researched -- Discussed in Item #4. B. The subcommittee members should notify the ARB if there is any other information available on the MACTs in the MACT Implementation Assistance Program -- Discussed in Item #4. C. The Marine Vessels Loading, Petroleum Refinery, and Gasoline Distribution NESHAPs will be combined into one category for the MACT Implementation Assistance Program -- Discussed in Item #4. D. Any comments on the "Delegation" letter should be sent to Alex Santos (ARB) by April 11, 1996 -- Discussed in Item #5. E. Starting from the next Title III Subcommittee Meeting, there will be one combined agency and industry meeting for both the morning and the afternoon session -- The CAPCOA Board would like to see if the current format is productive; if it is not, we will look at other format options. F. The ARB discussed with a representative from the Sierra Club the need to have a meeting with the environmental groups to discuss current Title III activities. The representative was interested but indicated that it should take place after the legislative activity decreases. G. Districts should send to the ARB a list of district representatives who will meet with the environmental groups -- pending setting up the meeting. H. ARB will compile a list of the various CAPCOA and STAPPA/ALAPCO workgroups for general information purposes -- Handout. 2. Report on the Annual Air Toxics Working Group Meeting The third annual Air Toxics Working Meeting brought together local, state, and federal experts to discuss issues related to Title III. There were 50 - 60 participants from state and local agencies, U.S. EPA Regional offices, and U.S. EPA Headquarters. Section 112(l)--equivalency was addressed in two sessions, with the remaining sessions addressing Title III/V Interface, Enforcement and Compliance, MACT Implementation, and the U.S. EPA's Integrated Air Toxics Program. Below are some of the results of each element in the Section 112(l) sessions. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting (MRR)--While the group favored providing greater flexibility to state and local agencies to implement alternative MRR requirements, two issues prevented the group from reaching a consensus in this area. These issues were OGC's concern about the legality of delegating MRR decisions to state and local agencies, and to what extent did U.S. EPA want/need to maintain "veto" authority over any alternative MRR requirement. Although there was a consensus on a Quick Response Team's value, there was nothing binding. Also, the other issues are currently being worked on. Work Practice Standards--This group supported having the MACT developers provide additional details on the basis for work practice standards and what acceptable alternatives would be a part of the MACT development process. The group supported addressing work practice standards issues in the MRR process because similar issues existed on authority to delegate and veto. Alternative Test Methods--Consensus was reached that minor amendments to test methods should be delegated to state/local authorities, and the approval of major amendments should be retained by Headquarters. No consensus was reached on "significant" changes which come between minor and major, although the group supported delegation of these changes to go to state/local authorities with sufficient expertise. A management position from Headquarters on the issue of delegation of significant amendements to state/local agencies is awaited. Equivalency by Permit (Part 70 Sources)--There was a consensus to move forward on this option which would allow the use of a part 70 permit as the vehicle for identifying alternative NESHAP requirements. The criteria to be followed in developing alternative requirements would be White Paper 2. Equivalency by Permit (Area Sources)--No consensus was reached on this area. Although there seemed to be general agreement on the concept, there is disagreement as to the extent to which the underlying permit system must meet the 1989 guidelines on federally enforceable permit conditions. There was no consensus on the need for U.S. EPA's review and approval of each permit proposing alternative requirements. Follow-up action included having the Equivalency-by-Permit workgroup discuss the above issues further to see if staff-level consensus can be reached. Broad Program Approval--Consensus was reached that the concept of Broad Program Approval should be pursued as an equivalency option. OGC still has some concerns about the ability to delegate decisions to the extent proposed in California's and Maryland's concept papers. Issues: - If U.S. EPA uses California test methods for the national standards, why does U.S. EPA have a problem with California test methods when it comes to equivalency? - How can greater trust be established between Region IX and ARB? How can we develop a better working/cooperative relationship? - Can Region IX give equivalency approval, or does the approval need to come from Headquarters? - Rapid response and clear and fair representations of California sources that are in compliance with stringent requirements are needed. - Answers to questions needed on a shorter time period. OAQPS Air Toxics Strategy Purpose: To provide a framework--a set of goals for the Air Toxics Program. This does not include coming up with additional items that aren't already in the statute, but includes looking to use some sort of Total Quality Managment-type strategy to have some sort of accessible information on what is being done/is to be done. Issue: - How can we make sure that the California risk reduction efforts are recognized by this group? ACTION ITEM:  Draft analysis from CAPCOA committee that identifies how the California Hot Spots Program could replace the federal residual risk program. 3. Discussion of Title III Workgroup Issues A Workgroup is being assembled. The Workgroup will consist of Air Pollution Control Officers (APCOs), U.S. EPA representatives, industry representatives, and key lead staff from the ARB. The focus of the Workgroup will be policy issues related to Title III. For example, the Workgroup will address the different approaches for achieving equivalency with the federal toxics program, and consider which direction California wants to take. The first meeting is scheduled for July 2, 1996. 4. NESHAP Implementation Assistance Program A summary of the progress made on the NESHAP Implementation workgroups was given. A few comments and suggestions were provided. The SCAQMD suggested that the end product of these workgroups is compliance checklists. Miriam Lev-On mentioned that the American Petroleum Institute (API) has given workshops on the petroleum-related NESHAPs, and the training material is available to state agencies for a fee. The petroleum representatives plan on participating in the petroleum workgroup but they have not yet determined who will be involved. ACTION ITEMS:  If any committee members would like to join any of the NESHAP Implementation workgroups, they should contact Lynn LaBarber at (916) 322-2361. 5. Delegation of NESHAPs Alex Santos (ARB) summarized the ARB's draft guidance letter on straight delegation of NESHAPs. The letter provides guidance to districts on both requesting delegation and proceeding with the adoption of NESHAPs. The letter serves as a vehicle for streamlining the delegation request submittal through the ARB. Mr. Santos indicated that the three main advantages to receiving delegation of a NESHAP are: 1) the district becomes the primary contact for the NESHAP 2) delegation allows for Title V streamlining 3) delegation simplifies reporting activities by not requiring duplicate copies of all reports to U.S. EPA In the letter, the ARB recommends each district request delegation of all current and future NESHAPs with the following exceptions: NESHAPs that address radionuclides, chromium electroplating operations, chromium cooling towers, and ethylene oxide emissions from aerators and sterilizers. The radionuclide NESHAP is more appropriately addressed by DHS. The latter three NESHAPs are going to be replaced by local rules based on existing ATCMs. Currently, we are working with U.S. EPA to resolve issues regarding the delegation of Section 112(g) and the district's authority to accept delegation of NESHAPs that address nonmajor sources. 6. Status of Final Accidental Release Regulation Fred Lercari, Ph.D., from the California Office of Emergency Services (OES) gave an update on the latest development of Section 112(r) Accidental Releases Prevention under the federal Clean Air Act. The final rule of Section 112(r) Accidental Releases Prevention was released by the U.S. EPA in late May. The compliance date will be three years after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. The current California Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) has been in existence for over eight years and is supported by State statutes. The RMPP requirement is similar to that of the Section 112(r) program, but not identical. OES prefers not to have two separate programs but an integrated program satisfying both the State and federal requirements. Currently, there are two separate bills (AB 42 and SB 1889) in the California legislature to accomplish the integration of the state RMPP and Section 112(r) requirements. Both of these two bills will also provide a funding mechanism for the administrative agency to carry out the necessary functions of the integrated program. Finally, the final rule on Section 112(r) is still subject to interpretation, and the outcome of AB 42 and SB 1889 will determine the implementation of Section 112(r) in the State of California. 7. Update on the Urban Area Source Program - involves controls on the sources of 70% of pollution - specific actions to reduce risk by 75% - focused resources needed to analyze different city's pollutants and coming up with appropriate controls - mobile sources are now being included also - 30 of the top HAPs need to be identified...this is difficult because after the top 10, the HAPs are hard to figure out and they can differ by area 8. Section 112(g) Update The U.S. EPA has recently reproposed a Section 112(g) rule in the March 26, 1996 Federal Register (59 FR 13125). The reproposal comes after much opposition to the original proposal by the U.S. EPA. State and local agencies, environmental groups, and industry met with the U.S. EPA in July 1995 and again in January 1996 to negotiate acceptable approaches for integrating the federal new source review with existing new source review programs. The reproposed rule requires new source maximum achievable control technology (MACT) on newly constructed or reconstructed major sources. Modified sources are excluded from the requirements of the Section 112(g) rule. We anticipate that most California district will use new source review procedures that are already in place to comply with the Section 112(g) requirements. 9. Presumptive MACT Update Louis Chiu (ARB) reported on the latest development of the Presumptive MACT (P- MACT) activities. In 1995, the U.S. EPA has published a list of P-MACTs and invited the states and local districts to form partnerships with the U.S. EPA in the development of P-MACT. The ARB and the local districts had decided to participate in 11 different P-MACTs. These are as follows: 1. Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production 2. Petroleum Refineries (Three Vents) 3. Polyester Resins Production 4. Publicly Owned Treatment Works 5. Reinforced Plastic Composites Production 6. Secondary Aluminum Production 7, Semiconductor Manufacturing 8. Stationary Internal Combustion Engines 9. Stationary Turbines 10. Portland Cement Manufacturing 11. Boat Manufacturing Most of the workgroups for each of these P-MACTs have met and have started to collect data. Recently, the U.S. EPA notified the ARB about the formation of three additional P-MACT workgroups. They are Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Plants, Rubber Tire Manufacturing, and the Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON). Source categories included in the MON are listed below: Chelating Agents Cholorinated Paraffins Explosives Photographic Chemicals Phthalate Plasticizer Rubber Chemicals Paints, Coatings, and Adhesives Alkyd Resins Polyester Resins Polyvinyl Alcohol Polyvinyl Acetate Polyvinyl Butyral Polymethyl Methacrylate Polyvinylidine Chloride Maleic Anhydride Copolymers Non-SOCMI Organic Chemical Production These new P-MACT will be presented to the MACT Standards Workgroup to determine the level of interest from the workgroup members. 10. Other Issues Status of 112(l) Submittals: - Dry Cleaning--Federal Register notice on May 21, 1996/State ATCM replacing Federal requirements - Chrome Plating--ARB is currently working with U.S. EPA to prepare the Chrome Plating submittal. A major issue is determining what MRR requirements are necessary. The Chrome Plating ATCM has few MRR requirements, while the federal MACT has many. Currently, we believe the Chrome Plating ATCM must be modified to accommodate federal requirements. These changes to the ATCM will have to be formally presented to the Board. To date, our legal office has not identified any legal issues that would delay the approval of our submittal. Issues: - Is there a mechanism by which EPA can approve applications in part? 11. Next Meeting Date and Location The next CAPCOA Title III Subcommittee will meet at the ARB office in Sacramento and the video conference room at the Air Resources Board in El Monte. The date for the next meeting is August 8, 1996. (Note: This meeting date has been cancelled. The next meeting will be scheduled after the annual STAPPA/ALAPCO/U.S. EPA Workshop which is scheduled for August 26-29, 1996.)