# lolQ^K-S^f p. i

j^' X

\ ''/

. PRQl f c T i
/ UNITED STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y WASHINGTON , D.C

. 2046 0



### SE P I 9 I98 8 OFFIC E O F SOLI D WAST E AN O EMERGENC Y RESPONS E

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT :

FROM : Minute s o f th e Meetin g o f th e Emergenc y Respons e Division , th e Offic e o f Genera l Counsel , an d representative s o f th e Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n Huber t Watter s Emergenc y

Response ' DTvls'io

n 

### TO :

1 . 2 .

3 . Th e Recor d

Date : Place :

Attendees :

Purpose : Thursday , Augus t 11 , 198 8

U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y 40 1 M Street , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2046 0
JohnRiley , ER D Barbar a Hostage , ERD Hubert Watters , ER D Charli e Carter , 0G C Carri e We nling , 0G C Ji m Mulligan , CM

A Kath y Bailey , CM

A Rosemar y Wisniewski , IC F Inc . Meetin g requeste db

y th e Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio nt o discus s th e applicabilit y of th e federall y

permitte dreleas e exemptio nt o certai n categorie s o f ai r emissions . Summary/Hig hlights :

Member s o f th e staff s o f th e Emergenc y Respons e Divisio n (ERD ) an d th e Offic e o f Genera l Counse l (0GC ) me t wit h representative s o f th e Chemical Manufacturer s Associatio n(CMA ) t o discus s certai nissue s concernin g th e treatmen t of ai r emission s in th e propose drul e o n federall y

permitte drelease s whic hinterpret s CERCL A sectio n101(10)(H ) (se e 5 3 FR 2726 8 Jul y 19 , 1988) . Th e CM A representative s ha

d severa l relate dconcern s abou t whic hthe y

sought clarification :P. 2

(1 ) Th e Agency' s statutor y interpretatio ntha t permitte d release s ar e release s subjec t t o an d i n complianc e wit hpermitte do r regulator y requirements ; (2 ) Th e Agency' s reason s fo r th e languag e adde d t o 4 0 CF RPar t 35 5 (a)(2)(ii)(H ) inth e propose d rule ; an d (3 ) Th e metho d fo r determinin g whic hfacilitie s ar e require d t o provid e CERCL A sectio n10 3 notificatio no f release s an

d whic hrelease s ar e federall y permitte d unde r th e Clea nAi r Act . Addressin g th e firs t issue , ERD note dtha t CERCL A sectio n101(10 ) generall y limit s th e federall y permitte d releas e exemptio nt o release s i ncomplianc e wit h permitte d o r regulator y requirements . Th e Agenc y believe s tha t a straightforwar dinterpretatio no f th e statut e indicate s tha t i f a releas e exceed s permitte d levels , i t i s no t i

ncomplianc e an

d canno t b e federall y permitted . Also , th e broades t interpretatio no f th e sectio n101(10)(H ) statutor y ter m "subjec t to, " unde r whic hvirtuall y

al l ai r emission s woul d b e exemp t fro m CERCLA reportin g requirements , coul dno t hav e bee n intende d b

y Congres s becaus e suc ha ninterpretatio nwoul d includ e dangerou s episodi c releas e fo r whic hth e Agenc y woul d mos t certainl y

wan t notic e t o determin e whethe r a respons e actio nwa s needed . T o b e exemp t unde r sub sectio n101(10)(H) , therefore , a releas e mus t b e i n subjec t t o and

_i ncomplianc e wit ha CA A permi t o r contro l regulation . Accordingly , i f th e amoun t o f th e releas e exceedin g th e permitte d level , i.e. , th e portio no f th e releas e tha t i s no t federall y permitted , i s equa l t o o r exceed s th e RQ , th e releas e mus t b e reporte dimmediatel y t o th e Nationa l Respons e Center . Wit hregar d t o determinin g whic hfacilitie s ar e subjec t t o notificatio nrequirements , ER D pointe d ou t tha t i n th e propose drul e th e Agenc y describe d an

daske d fo r comment s onthre e alternativ e approache s fo r definin g th e scop e o f th e ai r releas e exemption . 0G C explaine d tha t th e languag e inth e propose d revisio no f 4 0 CFR.4 0 355(a)(2)(ii)(H ) i s base do nth e firs t approach . ER D als o sai d tha t comment s fro m association s suc ha s th e CM A ar e solicite d becaus e associatio nmember s hav e th e experienc e t o assis t EP A indeterminin g whic ho f th e propose d approache s bes t protect s huma nhealt han d th e environmen t whil e no t requirin g unnecessar y duplicativ e reporting . CM A the nrequeste d clarificatio nabou t severa l specifi c categorie s o f facilitie s an dthei r statu s unde r th e propose d approaches , a s follows :P. 3

Facilitie s inattainmen t area s tha t ar e subjec t t o Par t C o f th e CA

A bu t ar e no t subjec t t o preventio no f significan t deterioratio n(PSD ) requirement s o r othe r permi t o r contro l regulations ; Facilitie s tha t hav e submitte da ninventor y o f emission s tha t th e Stat e ha s reviewe di nterm s o f applicabl e standard s an

ddecide dtha t th e facilitie s ar e no t require dt o hav e a permit , althoug hth e Stat e ma y hav e non-facility-specifi c limit s init s ai r toxic s regulations ; Facilitie s tha t ar e subjec t t o limit s o f VO C emission s unde r permit s o r contro l regulations ; an d Facilitie s whos e emission s ar e permitte do r controlle d b y a completel y

independen t stat e ai r toxic s program . Respondin g t o CMA' s inquiries , ERD an dOG C staf f member s indicate dthat , ingeneral , CM A wa s perhap s givin g to o narrow a readin g t o th e requiremen t tha t facilitie s mus t b e subjec t t o an

dincomplianc e wit hpermi t condition s o r contro l regulations . Th e federall y permitte dreleas e exemptio ni s premise do nth e belie f tha t suc hrelease s nee dno t b e reporte dunde r CERCL A sectio n10 3 becaus e th e release s ar e limite db y andreporte dt o othe r authorities . Thus , th e basi c criterio ntha t mus t b e me t i s tha t th e facility' s emission s ar e subjec t t o an din complianc e wit hsom e federa l o r federall y authorize d stat e limitatio nwhethe r tha t i s a permit , contro l regulation , o r a waive r unde r CA A sectio n110 . I t i s no t necessary , however , tha t th e limitatio nb e facility
specific . Wit hregar dt o a facilit y inanattainmen t area , ER D explaine dtha t th e release s from suc hfacilitie s canno t b e considere dexemp t unles s the y ar e subjec t t o an din complianc e wit ha federa l o r federall y authorize dstat e program limitation . I f suc hfacilitie s ar e currentl y no t subjec t t o an

y permi t limitatio no r contro l regulation , OG C raise dth e possibilit y tha t facilit y owner s o r operator s migh t reques t tha t a limitatio nb e specifie db

y a Federa l o r federall y authorize dstat e program inorde r t o mee t th e threshol dqualificatio nfo r th e federall y

permitte dreleas e exemption . Emission s from

facilitie s tha t hav e bee nreviewe db y Stat e authoritie s an

dallowe dt o operat e withou t facility-specifi c permit s o r controls , ma y qualif y unde r th e firs t an

dthir dapproaches . OG C note dtha t th e Agenc y specificall y

aske dfo r comment s onth e treatmen t o nsuc hnegativ e determinations . If , however , emission s from suc hfacilitie s ar e subjec t t o an dincomplianc e wit hemission s limitation s writte nint o stat eP. 4

wit hemission s limitation s writte nint o stat e regulations , eve nthoug hth e limitation s ar e no t facility-specific , they woul d b e considere d exemp t fro m reportin g requirement s approaches . VO C emissions , i f subjec t t o an d i ncomplianc e wit h permi t condition s o r contro l regulations , woul d b e exemp t fro

m reportin g requirement s unde r th e firs t an d thir d approache s bu t no t unde r th e second . Th e secon d approac hdisqualifie s VO C emission s becaus e regulator y standard s an

dlimitation s ar e base do nth e contributio n o f VO C t o th e formatio no f ozon e no t o nth e direc t healt heffect s o f VO C emissions . Emission s tha t ar e permitte d o r controlle d solel y b y an independen t Stat e ai r toxic s program , OG C representative s explained , canno t b e considere d federall y

permitte d release s becaus e th e statut e clearl y require s tha t release s come withi nFedera l o r federall y derive d stat e authority . CM A als o raise d th e questio no f th e "cut-of f point " fo r routin e release s unde r th e thir dpropose d approach . ERD staf f member s replie dtha t th e Agenc y aske dfo r comment s from th e regulate d communit y o nth e routin e vs . nonroutin e distinction . ER D als o state dtha t some non permitte d release s ma y qualif y fo r reduce dreportin g unde r CERCL A

sectio n103(f)(2) . Nex t Steps : CM

A sai d tha t the y

woul db e happy

t o assis t th e Agenc y b y attemptin g t o defin e routin e release s perhap s i n term s o f percentages . CM A adde dtha t the y

woul d submi t forma l comments o

nalternativ e approache s t o definin g th e scop e o f th e ai r emission s exemptio nwit hthei r comment s o f othe r aspect s o f th e propose drule .