Minutes of the CAPCOA Title III Subcommittee Meeting September 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. Handouts: * Letter from U.S. EPA to the ARB regarding chrome plating rule substitution * Delegation Guidance for the Districts Items: 1. Report of Action Items from the June 12, 1996 Meeting A. The subcommittee will identify how the California Hot Spots Program could be used to replace the federal residual risk program -- Deferred looking at issue since the Title III Work Group long-term subgroup is to address as part of the State Program Approval option. B. The subcommittee members should contact Lynn LaBarber if they would like to join any on the NESHAP Implementation workgroups -- The workgroups met in early September. 2. Report on Title III Work Group Dan Donohoue (ARB) reported on the activities of the Title III Work Group. The following are the main points of the discussion. Work Group objective is to achieve a seamless integration of local, State, and federal programs related to regulating VOC and particulate pollutants that are TACs and/or HAPs. Goal is to develop approaches that would allow the State and districts flexibility to implement alternative requirements to the NESHAPs as long as equivalent emission reductions are achieved and MRR requirements are sufficient to assure compliance. Participation in the group is high level managers with EPA Region 9, CAPCOA, ARB and various industry representatives. The Work Group has met three times, two subgroups have met six times. Currently working on two strawperson proposals that could become MOUs or guidance documents for implementing the rule substitution option (63.93) in subpart E and for implementing the White Paper II permit streamlining options. The rule substitution and permit streamlining strawperson proposals provide guidance on the criteria and demonstration required for an equivalency showing. Beginning work on a strawperson proposal for state program approval which could be used as the basis for amendments to the subpart E program approval section (63.94). 3. Report on the Air Toxics Implementation Workshop Barbara Lee (NSCAPCD) attended the U.S. EPA/STAPPA/ALAPCO Air Toxics Implementation Workshop in North Carolina and gave the following report. The re-invention of 112(l) is slowly proceeding by U.S. EPA. However, U.S. EPA did indicate that they were committed to revisions under Phase II of the 112(l) reinvention process. MACT Implementation is being reviewed standard by standard. At this time, the activities consist of information sharing and identifying applicable sources. In order to effectively coordinate the Air Toxics Program and the Criteria Pollutants Program, the OAQPS issued a draft guidance document, the OAQPS Air Toxics Strategies (OATS). OATS is supposed to outline the overall strategy taking into account the CAA requirements. A copy of OATS is available from the U.S. EPA. 4. Status of Delegation Request Letter Alex Santos (ARB) updated the subcommittee of the status on the ARB's guidance letter regarding straight delegation of NESHAPs. The letter provides guidance to districts on both requesting delegation and proceeding with adoption of NESHAPs. The ARB has worked with the U.S. EPA to resolve all outstanding issues. The resulting modifications to the letter include the following: Originally, the letter indicated that delegation was required for Title V permit streamlining. However, U.S. EPA guidance, e.g. White Paper 2, does not require delegation prior to permit streamlining. Statements indicating that delegation was a prerequisite for Title V streamlining were removed from the letter. Clarifying language regarding when delegation becomes final were added. The letter now specifically recommends that districts request delegation of the General Provisions. The model adoption request letter, Attachment 5, was changed to a model notification of adoption letter, since districts need not request approval from the U.S. EPA to adopt NESHAPs. Various modifications were made to the flowcharts. Language was added to Attachment 3 of the model request for delegation letter indicating districts have received authority to receive delegation from the U.S. EPA. The ARB will be accepting further comments on the letter until September 20, 1996. The ARB anticipates a final version of the letter being sent to each Air Pollution Control Officer by mid-October. ACTION ITEMS: All comments on the delegation letter should be sent to Alex Santos no later than September 20, 1996. Comments may be sent via E-Mail to the following address: asantos@arb.ca.gov. If you have any questions, please contact Alex at (916) 327-5638. 5. Report on Chrome Equivalency Submittal/Compliance Extension Letter Background: The Proposed Chrome Plating ATCM is a hybrid of the existing ATCM and the NESHAP. The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are more stringent than in the existing ATCM. The ARB and the U.S. EPA have worked together on identifying issues that ay impede approval of the ATCM to substitute for the NESHAP. The ARB informally ubmitted the draft Proposed Chrome Plating ATCM in December 1995 for review. ARB formally submitted the Proposed Chrome Plating ATCM for equivalence review on uly 16, 1996. In an August 22, 1996 letter the U.S. EPA deemed the application incomplete ecause the regulation has not been Board-approved. Unfortunately, U.S. EPA did not make any comments with respect to the approvability of the Proposed Chrome Plating ATCM. This puts ARB, the districts, and sources in a very difficult position. Without a clear idea of what the U.S. EPA would approve, the Board-approved ATCM may not be approvable by the U.S. EPA. The ARB plans to "informally" resubmit the application for equivalency and request an approvability reading from the U.S. EPA. The ARB also plans to workshop the Proposed Chrome Plating ATCM in November with U.S. EPA involvement. Unofficially, the ARB has heard that the form of the standard for the ATCM (milligrams per ampere-hours) is approvable. The ARB has requested a compliance extension for all hard chrome platers and chromic acid anodizers. The U.S. EPA is reviewing their authority to approve compliance extensions for reasons other than installing control equipment. The ARB has requested this extension because completing the section 112(l) equivalency process and modifying the existing chromium electroplating rules is not possible before the January 25, 1997 compliance date. Discussion: The ARB and the U.S. EPA are fairly far apart on the issues. ARB estimates that they have spent over 1.5 person year effort on the Chrome Electroplating equivalency process. The submitted version of the Proposed Chrome Plating ATCM will be presented at the workshops. ARB intends to present the Proposed Chrome Plating ATCM to the Board in January. (revised to May) No extension was requested for the decorative chrome platers because the deadline for extension requests had already past. Existing source tests will be adequate to meet the NESHAP if they meet the federal catch mass requirement. 7. 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 was schedules for November 21, 1996. [Note that the November 21, 1996 meeting has been canceled and a new date has not been set.]