p. 1


# OAR Box 1672 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# i/fpe) II-D-3 1 Docket Number: 

# A-98-1 3

Printed 9/30/200811:01:01 AM Sheet 96 of 132P. 2 M*D-3 / Dat e sent : Mon , 1 8 Ma y199 8 09:25:0 7 -040 0 From : "Wan g D L (Don) " <wangdl@ucarb.com > To : SHEDD.STEVE@EPAMAIL.EPA.GO V Copie s to : liukf@ucarb.com , soicejr@ucarb.co m Subject : RE : OL D MAC TApplicabilit y-Repl y Steve : Re : facilitie s tha t hav e no t applie d fo ra syntheti cmino rbu t pla n t o , ---^ , d o so , I thin k

whethe rth e sourc e need s t o fill ou t th e IC R for m ~"~~ * depend s o n ho wconfiden t the yfee l abou t procurin g th e syntheti cmino r permit
. A s a n example , I woul d fee l relativel yconfiden t i n gettin g approva l / , I" i fth e control/monitorin g proposa l wer e alread yprove n o rtha t 7 / reliability/accuracywer e easil yshow n (KIS S principle)
. / / '~ —; Th e abov e woul d depen d o n th e experienc e an d creativ e tendencie s .o f th e Stat e Permittin g Authorit yan d it s EP ARegiona l Offic e counterpart , whic h th e sourc e woul d b e awar e of
. I woul d leav e i t u p t o th e individua l source . The ykno wth e consequence s o fno t fillin g ou t a n IC R for m whe n the yshoul d have , an d woul d b e i n th e bes t positio n t o asses s th e ris k tha t the yar e takin g an d wis h t o take
. Thi s i s m yopinion
. I' m sur e tha t th e othe rmember s i n ou rou rBan d o f Merr yMe n woul d hav e interestin g idea s o n th e subject
. Do n > > From : STEV E SHEDD[SMTP:SHEDD.STEVE@epamail.epa.gov ] > Sent : Friday , Ma y15 , 199 8 4:3 1 P M > To : Wan g D L(Don ) > Cc : bhaneke@rtp.pes.com ; glaflam@rtp.pes.co m > Subject : OL D MAC T Applicabilit y-Repl y> > «Message : OL D MAC TApplicability » > Don , > > I thin k yo u ar e correc t i fthe yar e tru e o rsyntheti cminors
. I f> the yhav e no t receive d thei rsyntheti cstatu s an d the yar e abov e > 5/12. 5 criteria , the n w e nee d t o discus s an d figur e ou t wha t w e ca n > do
. I fa facilit yi s nearl yfinishe d th e proces s an d ha s submitte d a > complet e applicatio n o n gettin g tha t syntheti cstatu s i s on e thing
. > However , fo rthos e havin g jus t starte d th e proces s an d hav e n o clu e a s > t o th e outcom e o rpossibilit yo freceivin g syntheti cmino rstatu s the n > thi s i s a differen t case . Ho wd o w e distinguish ? I s th e facilit y> willin g t o tak e a risk ? Wha t d o yo u think ? > > Pleas e ge t Gre g LaFla m - 1 - Mon , 1 8 Ma y199812:10:2 3P. 3

bac k t o m e o n an y thoughts yo u have ! > > Steve > > > > Stephe n Shed d > U.S . EP A > Offic e o

fAi rQuality Plannin g an d Standard s > Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1 > voice : (919 ) 541-539 7 > fax : (919 ) 541-024 6 > E-mail : shedd.steve@epa.go v> > > » "Wan g D L (Don) " <wangdl@ucarb.com > 05/15/9 8 02:58p m > » > Steve : > Go t som e more questions . > > I have facilitie s that make onl y on e typ e ofproduct . The y have bee n > determine d to b e eithe rtru e minor s o r ar e expecte d t o receive > syntheti c > mino r status . > > Do the y have t o fil l ou t th e OL D MAC TICR' s i fthey trigge rth e IC R > applicabilit y determinatio n (base d o n actual ) bu t no t th e majo r sourc e > definitio n fo rMACT's ? Ifso , why ? > > Thx s i n advance . Do n > > >

Gre g LaFla m - 2 - - Mon , 1 8 Ma y 199812:10:2 3



# ZP. 4

Dat e sent : Fri , 1 5 Ma y1998 16:31:1 5 -0400 From : STEV E SHED D <SHEDD.STEVE@epamail.epa.gov > Subject : OL D MAC TApplicabilit y-Repl y To : wangdl@ucarb.co m Copie s to : bhaneke@rtp.pes.com , glaflam@rtp.pes.co m Don , I thin k yo u are correct i fthe yar e tru e o rsyntheti cminors
. I f the yhav e no t receive d thei rsyntheti cstatu s an d the y ar e abov e 5/12. 5 criteria , the n w e nee d t o discus s an d figur e ou t wha t w e ca n do
. I fa facilityi s nearl yfinishe d th e proces s an d ha s submitte d a complet e applicatio n o n gettin g tha t syntheti cstatu s i s on e thing
. However , fo rthos e havin g jus t starte d th e proces s an d hav e n o clu e a s t o th e outcom e o rpossibilityo freceivin g syntheti c mino rstatu s the n thi s i s a differen t case . Ho wd o w e distinguish ? I s th e facilit ywillin g t o take a risk ? What d o yo u think ? Pleas e ge t bac k

t o m e o n an ythought s yo u have ! 

### Stev e Stephe n Shed d U.S
. EPA Offic e o fAi rQualityPlannin g an d Standard s Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1 

### voice : (919 ) 541-539 7 fax:(919)541-024 6 E-mail : shedd.steve@epa.gp v > » "Wan g D L (Don) " <wangdl@ucarb.com > 05/15/9 8 02:58p m » > Steve : Go t som e more questions
. I hav e facilitie s tha t mak e onl yon e typ e ofproduct
. The yhave bee n determine d t o b e eithe rtru e minors o rare expecte d t o receiv e syntheti cmino rstatus . D o the yhave t o fil l ou t th e OL D MAC TICR' s i fthe ytrigge rth e IC R
Gre g LaFla m - 1 - Mon , 1 8 Ma y199 8 08:32:2 9 

# 3P. 5

applicabilit

y determinatio n (base d o n actual ) bu t no t th e majo r sourc e definitio n fo rMACT's ? I fso , why ? Thx s i n advance . Do n

Gre g LaFla m - 2 - Mon , 1 8 Ma y 199 8 08:32:2 9