P. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1875 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 18 ) ll-E-3 6

Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/200811:12:44 AM

Sheet 18of 86r = •- P. 2



# * ' A-90-1 9 ll-E-3 6

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENCY M K ^ j

- Offic e of Ai rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s \ ^%Yd-

" Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1 o



### HA R 

### 0 4 1992



## MEMORANDU

M 

## fr' i 0 

## E C \ B r39 2

&M-±jyO.~o •••••


## SUBJECT : Novembe r 5 , 199 1 Meetin g o n Lega l Issue s Associate d

wit h th e Hazardou s Organi c NESHA P FROM : Daphn e L
. McMurrer^^ ^ TO : Th e File s O n Novembe r 5 , 199 1 severa l member s o f th e Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning an d Standard s (OAQPS ) an d th e Offic e o f Genera l Counse l (OGC ) me t wit h representative s o f industryan d publi c interes t groups . Tabl e 1 provide s a lis t o f th e thos e wh o attende d th e meetin g an d thei r affiliations

. Thi s meetin g wa s hel d t o discus s th e lega l issue s associate d wit h th e Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s (NESHAP ) fo r Sourc e Categories : Syntheti c Organi c Chemica l Manufacturin g Industry(SOCMI ) an d Seve n othe r Sourc e Categories

. Thi s regulatio n i s commonl yknow n a s th e Hazardou s Organi c NESHAP , o r HON
. Specifically , th e topi c o f discussio n wa s th e emission s averagin g polic yfo r th e HON , an d i f i t i s legall yjustifiabl e unde r th e 199 0 amendment s t o th e Clea n Ai r Act
. Th e followin g issue s wer e raise d an d discussed : (1 ) Wha t constitute s a source , sourc e category , o r majo r source ; (2 ) ca n a sourc e b e plantwide ; (3 ) ca n emission s averaging b e plantwide ; (4 ) ca n averagin g b e allowe d acros s differen t pollutant s o r sourc e categories ; (5 ) ho w shoul d th e source' s floo r b e determined ; (6 ) coul d averagin g caus e non-complianc e wit h floo r requirements ; (7 ) ar e an ycutoff s permissible ; (8 ) shoul d averagin g b e permitte d fo r ne wsources ; (9 ) shoul d a discoun t facto r b e require d i n an averag e t o reflec t potentia l cos t savings ; an d (10 ) i f a discoun t facto r i s required , ho wshoul d th e valu e b e determined

.P. 3 

## # 4

Following th e meeting , Ms
. Nanc yCookson , o f th e Chemica l Manufacturer s Association , sen t a lette r commentin g o n some o f th e issue s discusse d a t thi s meetin g t o Mr
. Michae l Winer , o f OGC
. Thi s lette r i s provide d a s an attachmen t t o thi s memorandum

. Attachmen tP. 4



## TABL E 1

Nam e Affiliatio n
Michae l Wine r Nanc yCookso n Shanno n Wagner-Broon e Bil l Becke r Thoma s R
. Merlin o Daphn e McMurre r Raymond B
. Ludwiszewsk i LarryWeinstoc k Kare n Schapir o Car l Mazz a Lydi a Wegma n Andre wOti s Ala n Ecker t Patrici a Embrey Davi d Donige r Elle n Siegle r OGC/EP A CM A Swidde r & Barde n PM A STAPPA/ALAPC O MVM A EPA/OAQP S OGC/EP A OAR/EP A OE/AIR/EP A OAR/EP A OAQPS/ES D OPPE/EP A OGC/EP A OGC/EP A NRD C AP I

AP I = America n Petroleu mInstitut e CM A= Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n EPA= Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc yP. 5

CHEMICA L MANUFACTURER S ASSOCIATIO N

Decembe r6 , 199 1



### Mr . Michae l S , Winer , Esq . Offic e o f

Genera l Counse l Ai ran d Radiatio n Divisio n LE-132 A U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y 40 1 M Street , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2046 0

Dea r Mr . Winer : Thi s lette r i s i nfollow-u p t o th e meetin g hel d a t EP A o nNovembe r 5 , 1991 , t o discus s th e lega l issue s surroundin g implementatio no f EPA' s HO N Emission s Averagin g Proposal . Fou r "legal " issue s were raise d durin g th e meeting : definitio no f source , emission s averagin g compatabilit y

wit hthe floor , th e 10 % discountin g factor , and d e minimi s cutoffs . Eac ho f these issue s i s addresse d i nth e followin g comments . First , althoug hCM A agree s tha t EPA

ha s th e discretio nt o defin e "source " broadly , CM A doe s no t agree tha t emission s tradin g mus t b e limite d t o emissio npoint s withi na singl e sourc e category . Tradin g amon g sourc e categorie s i s als o allowable unde r th e statute . Th e ultimat e tes t o f the adequac y o f complianc e wit hMAC T i s a t the leve l o f th e "majo r source, " whic hEP A may defin e fo r purpose s o f the emission s averagin g progra m t o be th e entir e contiguou s facility . S o lon g a s the facilit y a s a whol e achieve s MACT , th e leve l o f contro l achieve d b

y an y individua l emissio npoin t o r grou p o f emissio npoint s withi nth e facilit y i s irrelevant . MAC T fo r th e contiguou s facilit y wil l simpl y

be the tota l emission s leve l authorize d unde r al l o f th e MAC T standard s applicabl e t o tha t facility . EPA i s already

employin g thi s "summin g o f MACT " metho d i ndevelopin g MAC T requirement s withi n source categories . Ther e i s n o logica l reaso nwh y th e same metho d ma y no t be use d t o calculat e a "summed " MAC T fo r a contiguou s facilit y tha t happen s t o includ e unit s i nmore tha none sourc e category .
EP A Ha s th e Discretio nt o Defin e Sourc e t o Includ e the Entir e HON

EP A ha s the discretion , fo r purpose s o f a HON emission s averagin g program , t o defin e "sourc e category " a s SOCMI , an d "source, " a s th e "contiguou s SOCM I Produc t Processe s unde r commo ncontrol. " I n Chevron , the Supreme Cour t confirme d tha t EP A ha s th e discretio nt o defin e th e ter

m "source " unde r th e Clea nAi r Ac t i na manne r tha t th e Agenc y find s bes t implement s the purpose s o f th e statute . Thi s discretio nextends , wher e EPA deem s i t appropriate , t o anentir e contiguou s facility .

250 1 M Street , NW, Washington , D C 2003 7 202-887-110 0 Telex8961 7 (CM AWSH )P. 6



### Sectio n112(d ) require s EP A t o promulgat e MACT standard s fo r "eac h categor y or subcategor

y o f major source s ... " Sectio n112(a)(1) , i

n turn , define s "majo r source " a s
"an y stationar

y sourc e or grou

p o f stationar

y source s locate

d withi na contiguou s area an d unde r commo

ncontro l tha t emit s o r ha s th e potentia l t o emi t considerin g controls , inth

e aggregate , 1 0 ton s per year o

r more o f an

y hazardou s ai r pollutant or 2 5 ton s pe r year ' or mor e o f an y combinatio

no f hazardou s ai r pollutants. "
4 2 U.S.C . § 7412(a)(1 ) (emphasi s added) . Under thi s definition , ther e ca nbe littl e questio no f EPA' s authorit y t o define "major source " t o includ e an y collectio

no f individua l emission s points , includin g a n entir e plant . (Sectio n112(a)(3 ) provide s tha t th e ter m "stationar

y source " i s t o hav

e th e sam e definitio

na s i t ha s unde r sectio n111(a) , i.e. , a s "an

y building , structure , facility , o r installatio

nwhic h emit s o r ma y emi t an

y ai r pollutant." ) Sectio n112(i ) the

nrequire s th

e "sources " fo

r whic hMAC T standard s hav

e bee nestablishe

d t o comply

withthos e standards . Nothin g i nth e statut e require s either th e standard s themselve s or sources ' complianc e wit hthos e standard s t o b e o na nemissio

npoint basis . Thi s interpretatio

no f th e applicabl e statutor y provision s i s consistent withth

e shif t i

nfocus incorporate d inth e 199 0 Amendments . Unde r th e old NESHA

P program , hazardou s ai r pollutant s wer e regulate

d o na pollutant-by-pollutant basis , withth e primar

y focu s inevitably

fallin g o nemissio

npoint s o f individua l pollutants . Unde r th

e ne w MACT program , i

ncontrast , th

e emphasi s i s instea d o n regulatio

no f categorie s o f sources , man y o f whic

hemi t more tha

non e hazardou s ai r pollutant . EP A i s directe

d t o identify

categorie s an

d subcategorie s o f sourc e type s an d the nt o promulgat e emissio nstandard s applicabl e t o thos e categorie s an d subcategories . Th e statut e accord s EP A considerabl e discretio ninaccomplishin

g thi s task . The Agenc y may , fo r example , establishbothcategorie s tha t includ e entir e plant s an d categorie s (o

r subcategories ) tha t includ e only certai nprocesse s an d equipment withi na plant . Th e statut e clearly

doe s no t contemplat e tha t subcategorizatio n mus t b e take

ndow nt o th e individua l emissio npoint level . Indeed , sectio n112(c)(1 ) encourage s EP A t o define sourc e categorie s an d subcategorie s t o coincid e withth

e existin

g categorie s unde r sectio n 11 1 an d Par t C . Mos t o f thos e categorie s ar e base d o nentir e plant s o

r larg e grouping s o f source s withi nplant s rather tha no nindividua l piece s o f equipment . Tha t i s no t t o sa

y tha t EP

A doe s no t hav

e th e discretio

nt o promulgat e a MACT "standard " fo r a major sourc e tha t i s infac t a se t o f separat e requirement s applicabl e t o different emissio npoint s withi n th e broade r "major " source . However , sinc e th e statut e plainl y authorize s EP

A t o establisha singl e emissio nstandar

d fo r th e entire "major source, " i t logically follow s tha t th

e Agenc y ma y als o promulgat e an

d implemen

t it s requirement s fo r individua l emissio nP. 7

point s i na manne r tha t establishe s a nemission s leve l fo r th e entir e majo r sourc e o r some portio no f it .
I npromulgatin g MAC T standard s unde r sectio n112(d) , EPA i s directe d t o conside r "th e cos t o f achievin g [ a particular ] emissio n reduction , an

d an y non-ai r qualit y

healt han

d environmenta l impact s an d energy requirement s . . . " 4 2 U.S.C . § 7412(d)(2) . MAC T standard s are no t t o b e promulgate d i na vacuum ; instead , EP A i s charge d wit h identifyin g th e mos t efficien t manne r o f achievin g th e desire d leve l o f emissio nreductions . Se e S . Rep . No . 228 , 101s t Cong. , 1s t Sess . 16 7 (1989 ) (callin g fo r applicatio no f "th e maximu m degre e o f reductio n i nemission s fo r eac hpollutan t whic hi s achievabl e b y th e source s i n the category , takin g cos t and othe r factor s int o account") . Ther e wil l doubtles s b e man

y case s i nwhic hone ca nidentif y a "maximu

m degree o f reductio ni nemissions " tha t i s generall y appropriat e fo r "source s i n the category " bu t tha t th e mos t efficien t manne r fo r eac hsourc e i nth e categor y

t o mee t tha t leve l o f reduction , "takin g cos t an d othe r factor s int o account, " wil l vary . T o th e exten t tha t emissio n averagin g is , ultimately , a nefficiency-enhancin g tool , i t canbecome a nimportan t elemen t o f EPA' s promulgatio nan d implementatio no f MAC T requirements .
The HO N Emission s Averagin g Proposa l i s Compatibl e Wit ha MAC T Floo r
EPA' s HO

N emission s averagin g proposa l i s compatibl e wit hth e MAC T floor . Unde r sectio n112(d)(3) , existin g sourc e MAC T mus t be n o les s stringen t tha n"th e averag e emissio nlimitatio nachieve d b y th e bes t performin g 1 2 percen t o f existin g sources " i nth e "same categor y o r subcategory, " excludin g source s tha t hav e recentl y complie d wit hLAE R o r BACT . (Fo r categorie s containin g fewe r tha n3 0 sources , th e floo r i s th e average emissio nlimitatio nachieve d b y th e bes t performin g fiv e sources. ) Fo r new source s i nth e categor y o r subcategory , th e floo r i s th e "emissio ncontro l tha t i s achieve d i npractic e b y th e bes t controlle d simila r source. "
Sinc e these floor s are calculate d wit hreferenc e t o sourc e "categorie s o r subcategories, " i t follow s tha t th e ter m "source " i n thi s provisio nagai nrefer s t o the categorie s an d subcategorie s o f "major " sources . The clea r inten t o f thi s provisio ni s t o ensur e tha t majo r source s (i.e. , larg e source s o r group s o f source s withi na contiguou s are a an d unde r commo ncontrol ) mee t some standar d o f contro l

- - no t tha t every singl e emissio npoin t withi na "majo r source " individuall y

appl y th e control . There is , accordingly , n o conflic t betwee nth e concep t o f a MAC T emission s averagin g progra m and the MAC T floor s establishe d unde r sectio n112(d)(3) . The MAC T floor s a t mos t requir e tha t EPA ensur e tha t emission s tradin g i s no t use d i na manne r tha t allow s th e tota l emission s fro

m th e "majo r source, " t o excee d the leve l o f contro l achieve d b

y th e best-performin g 1 2 percen t o f simila r "major " source s (or , i nth e cas e o f new source , th e best-performin g source) . Averagin g o f emission s fro

m emissio npoint s an d subgrouping s o f source s withi n th e majo r sourc e woul d no t conflic t wit hthi s requirement , s o lon g a s the tota l emission s complie d wit happlicable MAC T limits . I nothe r

• 3

-P. 8



### words , th

e MACT floo

r simply

establishe s th

e floo r fo r th e MACT standard s applicabl e t o a major source , whic hi ntur nestablishth

e floo r fo r th e major source' s tota l leve l o f control . EP A Shoul d No t Apply

a Discountin

g Factor t o th

e Emission s Averagin g Progra m
EPA' s Emissio

nAveragin

g Proposa l suggest s tha t a "10 % discountin g facto r b e applie

d t o al l emission s averagin g unde r th

e HON. " I t i s clea r tha t EP

A ha s th e discretio

nt o apply

a discountin

g facto r t o source s participatin g i nth e emission s averagin g program . However , give nthe.Inherent conservatis m o f MACT , CM

A doe s no t believ

e tha t applyin g a discountin

g facto r t o trade s withi nth e HO N i s necessary . EP A Ha s th e Authorit

y t o Specify

"D e Minimis " Cutoff s Withi na MACT Standar d
EP A ha s th e authorit

y t o specify

"d e minimis " cutof f limit s withi n a MACT standard . Eve nthoug h"d e minimis " level s fo r MAC T ar e no t specifie

d i nth e Act , EP

A ha s th e inherent powe r t o provide fo r "d e minimis " exemptions . Thi s issu e wa s addresse

d i nAlabam

a Powe r Compan y v . Costle , 63 6 F.2d 32 3 (1979) . I nAlabam

a Power , th

e cour t state d tha t EP

A ha s th e authorit

y t o "exempt de minimi s situation s fro m a statutor

y comman d ... " Th

e cour t further state d that : "Th e abilit

y .. . t o exemp

t de minimi s situation s fro m a statutor

y comman d i s no t a

nabilit

y t o depar t fro

m th e statute , but rather a too l t o b e use d inimplementin

g th e legislativ

e design. " Legislativ

e histor

y doe s no t preclude EP A fro m exemptin

g d e minimi s amount s fro m MACT regulations . Som e individual s erroneousl y rel y o na statement mad

e b y Senator Durenberge r a s a nindicatio

ntha t de minimi s level s shoul d not be establishe d fo r MACT . 13 6 Cong . Rec . S1692 9 (October 27 , 1990) . Tha t languag

e i s no t really

"legislativ

e history " a s tha t ter m i s normall y

used . Th

e "legislativ

e history " tha t i s use d i ninterpretin

g a statut e consist s o f legislativ e statements , mad

e befor e passag e o f th e statute , tha t provide a ninterpretatio

no f wha t th

e legislature intende d th e statut e t o mean . Th e statement a t issu e here , which consiste

d o f comment s o

na nEP A paper o

npossibl e implementatio n strategies , i s bes t characterize d a s a nexpressio

no f preferenc e b

y on e Senator concernin

g ho w EP A shoul d implemen

t th e statut e onc e i t wa s enacted . Moreover , th

e statement o f a singl e legislator a s t o th e intende

d meanin g o f a statutor

y provisio

ni s no t controlling . Thi s particularl y applie s here , wher e th e legislativ

e histor

y itsel f indicate s a lac k o f agreement o

nman y o f th e interpretation s put forwar d b y individua l legislators . Th

e only forma l agreement b y al l th e Manager s i s foun

d i n th e Conferenc e Repor t whichdoe s no t preclude th e us e o f d e minimi s levels .

• 4

-P. 9

Congressma nDingel l wen t ou t o f hi s wa y t o stres s tha t the statement s o f individua l member s o f Congres s coul d no t be regarde d a s binding , authoritativ e interpretation s o f th e amendments . Althoug hh e recognize d tha t man y individual s woul d wis ht o presen t thei r persona l view s a s t o the appropriat e interpretatio no f variou s provision s o f th e statute , he emphasize d tha t onl y th e Statemen t o f Manager s i nthe Conference Repor t coul d b e regarde d a s authoritative . 13 6 Cong . Rec . E371 4 (Novembe r 2 , 1990) . Finally , th e averag e o f the to p 12 % o f bes t controlle d source s i n a categor y

d o includ e d e minimi s cutoffs . The federa l an d stat e ai r contro l regulation s formin g the basi s fo r the 12 % floo r includ e d e minimi s cutoffs . These rule s an d th e facilitie s adherin g t o the m for m th e MAC T floor . Therefore , d e minimi s cutoff s are inheren t i nthe floor . Conclusio n
CM A appreciate s th e opportunit y t o participat e i nEPA Roundtabl e discussions . The exchang e o f informatio nan d idea s i s a valuable too l fo r creatin g fai r an d effectiv e regulations . I f yo u have an y question s o r i f CM

A ca nb e o f furthe r assistance , please cal l me a t 202/887-1241 .

Sincerely ,

Nanc y Cookso n Counse l

cc : A . Ecker t fD . McMurre fP.1 0

• Michihiro KAMIJIMA, et

ai: Ovarian Toxicity of

2-Bromopropane 14 9

contras t t o th e effec t

o n spermatogenesis 10 '

. Extensiv e studie s ar e neede do n femal e reproductiv e toxicit y of structurall y relate dcompounds , especiall y in achroni c o r subchroni c stud

y design

. I n conclusion , 2-bromopropan e i s a s toxi c t o the female reproductiv e systema s it

i s t o th e male's

. Th e amenorrhe a observe damong Korea

n worker s i

n a n electronic s factory " coul dbe primarily attributabl e to 2-bromopropane exposure . Acknowledgment. Thi s wor k wa s supporte din par

t by a grant fro mth e Aichi Healt

hPromotio n Foundation , Japan

. Reference s 1 ) KimY

, Jun g K, Hwan g T , e t

al

. Hematopoieti c an

d reproductiv e hazard s o

f Korea n electroni c worker s exposedto solvents containing 2-bromopropane

. Scan dJ Wor k Enviro n Healt h1996 ; 22 : 387-391

. 2) Ichihar aG , Asaed aN , Kumazaw aT, e t al

. Testicula

r toxicit y o f 2-bromopropane

. J Occu

p Healt h1996 ; 38 : 205-206

. 3 ) Ichihar

aG , Asaed

aN , KumazawaT, e

t al

. Testicula

r an d hematopoieti c toxicit

y o f 2-bromopropane , asubstitut e fo r ozone layer-depleting chlorofluorocarbons

. J Occu p Healt

h1997 ; 39 : 57-63

. 4) KamijimaM , IchiharaG , Y u XZ , e t al

. Disruption i

n ovaria n cyclicit y due to 2-bromopropane i n the rat

. J Occu p Healt h1997 ; 39 : 3-4

. 5 ) Takeuch

i Y , Huang J , ShibataE , Hisanag aN , On o Y

. A tria l t o automatiz e a

n organi c solven

t exposur e syste m fo r small animals

. Jpn J In

dHealt h1989 ; 31 : 72 2 (i

n Japanese)

. 6 ) Coope r R , Goldma

n J , Vandenberg

hJ

. Monitoring o

f estrou s cycle i

n the laborator

y roden t b y vagina l lavage

. In : Heinde l J , Chapi n R , eds

. Femal e reproductiv e toxicology

. Sa

n Diego : Academic Press , 1993 : 45-56

. 7 ) Monte s G , Luqu

e E

. Effect s o f ovaria n steroids o

n vagina l smears i n th e rat

. Act aAna t 1988 ; 133 : 192-199

. 8 ) Jarrel l J , La

i E , Bar r R , McMaho n A , Belbec k L , O'Connel l G

. Ovaria

n toxicit y o f cyclophosphamid

e alon e an din combinatio n wit

hovaria n irradiatio n i

n the rat

. Cance r Re s 1987 ; 47 : 2340-2343

. 9 ) Whorto

n D , Kraus s RM , Marshal

l S , Milb y T

. Infertilit

y i n mal e pesticid e workers

. Lance

t 1977 ; 2 : 1259-1261

. 10 ) Shake dI , Sod-Moria

hU , Kaplansk

i J , Potashnik

G , Buchma n O

. Reproductiv e performanc e o f dibromo

chloropropane-treate dfemal e rats

. In t J Fertil 1988 ; 33 : 129-133

.