June 26, 1997
 

Ms. Mary D. Nichols                                           Mr. Steven A. Herman
Assistant Administrator                                       Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation                                 Office of Enforcement and
United States Environmental                               Compliance Assurance
Protection Agency                                               States Environmental
401 M Street, SW                                                Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460                                       401 M Street, SW
                                                                            Washington, DC 20460
 

Dear Ms. Nichols/Mr. Herman:

            We are writing to request a meeting with you at your earliest convenience to bring focus and closure to issues associated with the integration of the federal air toxics program with California's air pollution control program.

            We have been working diligently with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Region IX and various headquarter offices over the last several years to seek reasonable and practical solutions to integrate the new federal air toxics program into California's existing air toxics and criteria air pollutant control program. For the last six months, we have been working with the Section 112(l) Negotiating Team (Team).(1)The Team's overall objective is to develop a consensus approach that ensures California's program will:
 

a)   streamline and eliminate duplicate requirements;
 

b)   provide controlled emissions that are at least equivalent to the National Emission
      Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants;

c)   provide enforcement mechanisms that are practical, effective, and consistent with
      California's air pollution control program and adequate to assure compliance; and

d)   meet the identified needs of stakeholders.

            We expected to have workable solutions in place by June 30, 1997. Unfortunately, despite the tremendous time and hard work put forth by the U.S. EPA for the Team, it is evident that a practical solution is not likely to occur without your direct participation. We believe that the obstacles to finding an acceptable resolution are based on the following:
 


(1) The Section 112(l) Negotiating Team consists of representatives from the following organizations: Air Resources Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District, San Diego Air Pollution Control District, Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District, Western States Petroleum Association, Regulatory Flexibility Group, Natural Resources Defense Council, U.S. EPA Region IX, U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and U.S. EPA Office of General Counsel.



 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Ms. Mary D. Nichols/Mr. Steven A. Herman
June 26, 1997
Page Two
 
 

       Our experience with the chrome plating and gasoline distribution equivalency efforts exemplifies the difficulties we are having in finding workable solutions. We are particularly distressed by our continued inability to obtain approval of our draft chrome plating equivalency submittal. After two years of effort on what should have
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Ms. Mary D. Nichols/Mr. Steven A. Herman
June 26, 1997
Page Three
 

been a straightforward and simple effort, we are still "negotiating" issues that, in our opinion, have
little to do with achieving and maintaining emission reductions. These difficulties are in spite of the fact that the emission limitations in the federal rule are largely based on California's pioneering work on emission control technology conducted in the late 1980s.

            Over these past six months, we met with Ms. Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator, Region IX, on three occasions and participated in six conference calls.(2)Subgroups of the Team participated in another three conference calls. In addition, we exchanged a dozen documents addressing different aspects of the Team's efforts. Despite these actions, a clear solution is not within reach. However, we believe that the potential for a clear win-win situation exists. Consequently, we are requesting a two-hour meeting with both of you to address these issues and seek your help to bring the process to closure by September 1997.

            Ms. Gail Ruderman Feuer, representing the Natural Resources Defense Council, is an active participant on the Team, is supportive of the negotiations, and is interested in participating in the meeting. We have also asked Mr. William Becker, Executive Director, State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators, and the Association for Local Air Pollution Control Officers to participate in the meeting because we are aware that other states have similar concerns.

            It is critical that we find practical solutions to integrating the federal and state programs now. Several of the federal standards are already in effect and many will come into effect during 1997 and early 1998. In all cases, there are existing state or local regulations that already control hazardous air pollutant emissions from the sources that will be subject to the federal standards. Unless we act quickly, we will impose unnecessary regulatory burdens on California businesses and impose unnecessary administrative burdens on regulatory agencies, but will realize no commensurate environmental benefits.

            For your information, we have included three enclosures to this letter. The first is a proposed agenda for the meeting. The second provides a brief description of the integration issues and a chronology of significant events. The third is a letter dated December 4, 1996, to Ms. Marcus that outlines our fundamental position on equivalency issues.
 
 


(2)    The first two meetings were used to present and define the issues. These meetings occurred on February 5 and February 13. The first meeting of the Section 112(l) Negotiating Team occurred on March 4-5. The calls occurred on April 3, April 11, April 25, May 8, May 27, and June 20.

 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 Ms. Mary D. Nichols/Mr. Steven A. Herman
June 26, 1997
Page Four
 

            Please be assured that the meeting is intended to compliment all of our efforts and help move the process along. As stated in the objectives, we are committed to achieving equivalent or better emission reductions for each federal emissions standard. Furthermore, we remain committed to continuing our efforts with the Team to develop solutions.

            We look forward to a positive response. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Mike Kenny, Executive Officer, Air Resources Board, at (916) 445-4383.

                                                                        Sincerely,
 

 /s/                                                                    /s/
Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer            Pat Leyden, Deputy Executive Officer
Air Resources Board                                      South Coast Air Quality Management District
 
 

/s/                                                                     /s/
R. J. Sommerville, Director                            Barbara A. Lee, Air Pollution Control Officer
San Diego County Air Pollution                     Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution
Control District                                               Control District
 
 

/s/                                                                    /s/
Mike Carroll                                                   Michael D. Wang
Regulatory Flexibility Group                         Western States Petroleum Association

Enclosures

cc:      Ms. Felicia Marcus, U.S. EPA Region IX
           Mr. Steve Lipman, U.S. EPA-OAR
           Mr. David Howekamp, U.S. EPA Region IX
           Ms. Lydia Wegman, U.S. EPA-OAQPS
           Mr. Bruce Jordan, U.S. EPA-OAQPS
           Mr. Bruce Buckheit, U.S. EPA-OECA
           Mr. Michael Winer, U.S. EPA-OGC
           Mr. Mark Boese, San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Management District
           Ms. Gail Ruderman Feuer, Natural Resources Defense Council
           Mr. Bill Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Enclosure 1

Proposed Agenda

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

                                         Meeting Date/Time:       Be Determined

                                                         Location:       United States Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                               401 M Street, SW
                                                                               Washington, DC 


Time

1.        Introductions/Welcome                                                                                              5 minutes

 

2.        Overview of Critical Nature of Situation                                                                 10 minutes

 

3.        Presentation and Discussion of Prioritized Issues;

 

 

Recognition of State and Local Programs                                                              40 minutes

Recognition of State and Local Expertise                                                              20 minutes

Prescriptive Nature of Federal Regulations                                                            15 minutes

Development of Subpart E Amendments                                                               15 minutes

 

4.        Next Steps/Summary of Action Items                                                                    15 minutes

END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 





Enclosure 2

Summary of Issues and Brief Chronology of

Significant Events

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
California's Efforts to Integrate the Federal Air Toxics Program with
California's Air Pollution Control Program
Summary of Issues and Chronology of Significant Events
June 1997
Overriding Issue:

 Background:

 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 
   Summary of Efforts:

Hurdles:

 

 
 
 
 
 

 Consequences:

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
INTEGRATION OF THE FEDERAL AIR TOXICS PROGRAM
WITH THE CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
June 1997
1.     DEVELOPMENT AND AMENDMENT OF TITLE 40, CFR, PART 63, SUBPART E RULE
Date Significant Event
May 19, 1993 U.S. EPA proposes 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart E.
Nov 12, 1993 ARB/Industry Letter to Ms. Carol Browner (cc: Ms. Felicia Marcus) identifying that greater flexibility is needed.
Nov 26, 1993 U.S. EPA Promulgates Subpart E.
May 9, 1995 CAPCOA letter to Ms. Nichols (cc: Mr. Howekamp) requesting that U.S. EPA provide real flexibility in equivalency process.
Mar 30, 1995 ARB Chairman Dunlap letter to Ms. Mary Nichols (cc: Ms. Marcus), requesting that U.S. EPA amend Subpart E.
June 1995 STAPPA/ALAPCO Section 112(l) workgroup provides U.S. EPA a list of 19 amendments needed to Subpart E. 
Sep 1995 -  
May 1996
U.S. EPA Subpart E, Phase I, reinvention process occurs, which identifies, discusses, and proposes options to solve equivalency issues, including addressing table of 20 amendments. (CAPCOA/ARB representatives participate in over 75 conference calls with U.S. EPA).
Sep 1996 -  

Present
U.S. EPA Subpart E, Phase II, reinvention process occurs; objective is to develop preamble and regulatory language for Subpart E amendments. (CAPCOA/ARB representatives participate in over 45 conference calls with U.S. EPA).
Oct 24, 1996 ARB provides detailed regulatory language for sections 63.90, 63.92, 63.93, 63.94, 63.96, and a new section on test methods.
Dec 6, 1996 U.S. EPA holds national stakeholders meeting in Los Angeles; presents position papers on possible amendments/policy guidance on Subpart E.
Jan 31, 1997 ARB sends comments to U.S. EPA Headquarters (Ms. Lydia Wegman) on the position papers handed out at the December 6, 1997 stakeholders meeting.
Mar 26, 1997 U.S. EPA holds national stakeholders meeting in Washington D.C. presents position papers on possible amendments/policy guidance on Subpart E. ARB, STAPPA/ALAPCO, SCAQMD participate 
Apr 21, 1997 U.S. EPA commits to releasing proposed Subpart E amendments to Negotiation Team by this date. As of June 9, 1997, these amendments have not been promulgated.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
INTEGRATION OF THE FEDERAL AIR TOXICS PROGRAM
WITH THE CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
June 1997
 
2.     CALIFORNIA TITLE III WORK GROUP ACTIVITIES
Date Significant Event
Jul 2, 1996 Initial meeting of the Title III Work Group, consisting of U.S. EPA Region IX, ARB, industry, environmental group, and CAPCOA representatives. Defined Work Group charter; established Work Group structure and process.
Jul 22 & 23, 1996 Work Group identified 32 issues that should be addressed; identified four approaches for demonstrating equivalency: established a short-term subgroup to address rule substitution issues; Long-term subgroup to address program approval issues. 
Aug 19 & 20, 1996 Discussion of short-term subgroup's proposal for both rule substitution and permit streamlining
Sep 23, 1996 

Sep 24, 1996
Discussed the "Strawperson Proposal to Address Integration of District, State, and Federal Rules Using the Rule Substitution Approach"
Nov 22, 1996 Discussed WSPA's "Integration of SCAQMD VOC Rules with the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP Using the Rule Substitution Approach."
Dec 5, 1996 In attendance were representatives from U.S. EPA headquarters. ARB presented an overview of subpart E from the Title III Work Group perspective. ARB presented issues that the Title III Work Group identified as critical to the development of a workable state program and rule substitution program.
Jan 14, 1997 Work Group dissatisfied with progress, plans meeting with Felicia Marcus to emphasis importance of issues.
Feb 5, 1997 & 

Feb 12, 1997
Work Group members meet with Felicia Marcus.
Feb 21, 1997 Transfer of activities to Negotiation Team
 
3.     SECTION 112(L) NEGOTIATION TEAM ACTIVITIES
Date Significant Event
Mar 5 & 6, 1997 First Negotiation Team meeting. Discussed possible interim approaches, short term approaches, and longer term approaches related to amending the current U.S. EPA regulations.
Mar 25, 

Apr 3 & 11, 1997
Discuss Compliance Evaluation Audits (tie-breaker) proposal and interim options
Apr 22, 1997 ARB/CAPCOA provides comparison of district rule(s) vs. NESHAP for 12 source categories.
May 8 & 25, 1997 Continued discussion on interim and audit issues







CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
INTEGRATION OF THE FEDERAL AIR TOXICS PROGRAM
WITH THE CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
June 1997

3.     SECTION 112(L) NEGOTIATION TEAM ACTIVITIES (continued)
Date Significant Event
May 22, 1997 Meet with OAQPS rule writers on rule comparisons
 
4.     PERCHLOROETHYLENE DRY CLEANING EQUIVALENCY PROCESS
Date Significant Event
Feb 21, 1992 ARB comment letter to U.S. EPA regarding the Proposed Dry Cleaning NESHAP.
Sep 23, 1993 Dry Cleaning NESHAP promulgated.
Oct 14, 1993 ARB adopts Dry Cleaning ATCM with changes to accommodate NESHAP.
Dec 2, 1993 Letter to Bruce Jordan on Dry Cleaning ATCM adoption and intent to apply for equivalency.
Jun 6, 1994 U.S. EPA Region IX comments on draft point-by-point comparison of the Dry Cleaning ATCM and NESHAP submitted for Region IX review.
Jun 23, 1994 
thru 
May 31 1995
Conducted meetings and conference calls with Region IX to discuss Perc equivalency process. Submitted draft application for Region IX review and comments.
Jul 6, 1995 Formal submittal to Region IX for delegation of authority to substitute the Dry Cleaning ATCM in place of the Dry Cleaning NESHAP for area sources.
May 21, 1996 Final approval of equivalency application appears in Federal Register.
 
5.     CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING EQUIVALENCY PROCESS
Date Significant Event
Feb 18, 1988 Adoption of the California Chrome Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM).
1991-1993 Sources comply with ATCM resulting emission reductions equal to or greater than by the federal standards.
Jan 25, 1995 Promulgation of the Chrome Plating NESHAP. California sources already in complying with ATCM. 
Jul 28, 1995 Kick-off chrome equivalency meeting with U.S. EPA, ARB, and districts.
Dec 14, 1995 ARB submits Draft Chrome Electroplating Application for Subpart E § 63.93 Equivalency Submittal to U.S. EPA.






CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
INTEGRATION OF THE FEDERAL AIR TOXICS PROGRAM
WITH THE CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
June 1997

CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING EQUIVALENCY PROCESS (continued)
Date Significant Event
Dec 19, 1995 
thru 
April 24, 1996
ARB and U.S. EPA engage in conference calls, meetings, and exchange letters regarding Draft Draft Chrome Electroplating Application for Subpart E § 63.93 Equivalency Submittal.
Jul 16, 1996 ARB submits application for Equivalency, revised Chrome Plating ATCM to substitute for the Chrome NESHAP; proposed to add provisions to address U.S. EPA needs.
Aug 22, 1996 U.S. EPA finds application incomplete. 
Oct 24, 1996 
thru 
Feb 3, 1997
ARB conducts 3 workshops to discuss proposed Chrome Plating ATCM. Title III Work Group initiates Title III Chrome Subgroup and conducts several conference calls to discuss issues. 
May 14, 1997 ARB submits Proposed Chrome ATCM II to U.S. EPA Region IX.
Jun 6, 1997 U.S. EPA Region IX provides comments on Proposed Chrome ATCM II indicating outstanding issues still exist and it is not yet approvable.
 
6.     GASOLINE DISTRIBUTION EQUIVALENCY PROCESS
Date Significant Event
Dec 14, 1994 NESHAP Promulgated.
Aug 19, 1996 WSPA agrees to prepare draft equivalency analysis for the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP using SCAQMD rules and the concepts identified in the rule substitution strawperson.
Sep 23, 1996 WSPA distributes draft equivalency analysis. Two conference calls held in October/November.
Nov 22, 1996 U.S. EPA provided the Work Group with preliminary comments on the WSPA Gasoline Disrtibtuion NESHAP Package. EPA's general conclusion is that the SCAQMD rules are not identical to the NESHAP and therefore not approvable under the Subpart E
Dec 5, 1996 A subgroup is to be established to resolve issues associated with Gasoline Distribution NESHAP equivalency effort and use results in this effort to identify changes that should occur in Subpart E as part of the 112(l) reinvention process.
Jan 14, 1997 U.S. EPA determined that initial notification is need for gasoline distribution facilities. 

U.S. EPA will meet with WSPA, BAAQMD, SJVUAPCD, and SCAQMD to discuss U.S. EPA's comments on the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP prior to the next Work Group meeting.
Jan 28, 1998 Gasoline Distribution subgroup met to discuss equivalency issue.
Feb 5, 1997 U.S. EPA provides letter indicating that the WSPA's Gasoline Distribution NESHAP equivalency demonstration is not approvable.
Jun 23, 1997 Efforts on hold since February pending results of Section 112(l) Negotiating Team efforts.
 



 
 
 








Enclosure 3

Letter to Ms. Felicia Marcus Dated December 4, 1996

               (see letter from to U.S. EPA Region IX Felcia Marcus on 12/4/96 below.)