P. 1


# OAR Box 1875 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 28 ) ll-E-4 6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/2008 11:12:45 AM

Sheet 28 of 86P. 2 ^ 

# A-90-1 9 ll-E-4 6 DATE : Jul y6 , 199 2 SUBJECT : Hazardou s Organi c NESHA P (HON ) Meetin g wit h Stat e

Representative s Attache d ar e material s distribute d b yth e Nationa l Governor s Association' s Ai r Implementatio n Tas k Forc e fo r discussio n durin g a teleconferenc e wit h EPApersonne l o n Jul y6 , 1992 . An agend a an d a n issu e pape r o n interpollutan t averagin g ar e attached . Attachments : 2

\ \**- - f , \ t * "y

mgmll.memos.de tP. 3 

### NATIONA L GOVERNORS ' ASSOCIATIO N Ro vRome r Governo ro f Colorad o Chairma n Carrol l A
. Campbel l Jr
. Governo ro f Sout h Carolin a Vic e Chairma n Raymon d C
. Scheppac h Executiv e Directo r Hal l o f th e State s 44 4 Nort h Capito l Stree t Washington , D.C
. 20001-157 2 Telephon e (202 ) f>24-5.'0 0

** NOTE : REVISE D AGEND A 

### Th e Stat e Environmenta l Commissioners ' Ai r Implementatio n Tas k Forc e Conferenc e Cal l With EP A - - Monday , Jul y 6 , 2:0 0 P.M
. ED T

Conferenc e Line : 202-260-384 4 

### REPOR T FRO M HO N WORKGROU P

• Interpollutan t

Averagin g

• Discoun t

Facto r 

### STATU S REPORT

• Propose dEnhance dI/ M Rul e (wa s du e 11/91 ; currentl y a t OMB ; suit s pending )

• Fina l Permi t

Rul e (impac t

o f DO J opinion )

• Transportatio n Conformit y Regulation s (wa s du e 11/91 ; SI P revision s du e by 11/92 ; sui t pending ) 

### RULES/ISSUE S O N TH E HORIZO N

• State s Facin g Potentia l Law Suit s fo r No t Actin g O n Key Rule s Tha t Ar e Delayed , e.g. , enhance dI/

M b y Novembe r

199 2

• Propose dGuidanc e o r Standard s for

NO x i n Tide s I an dIV : What I s RACT ?

• Ne w Sourc e Revie w Rule s for Nonattainmen t

Area s (emissio n offset

rules )

• Final Rul e o n NS RRequirement s for Electri c Utilitie s

• Incineratio n Rule : Delay I s Holdin g U p Stat e Permittin g Activity

• Mobil e Ai r

Conditione r

Refrigeran t

Recyclin g Requirement sP. 4



### Discussio n Shee

t Fo r HO N Workgrou p intArpollutan t Averagin g Objectiv e T o obtain consensu s o n a framework —a s specifi c a

s possibl e —for interpollutan ttrading. 

### Backgroun d Th e interpollutan

taveraging issu e i s addressed only briefl y in th e draf

tHO N rule . Th

e rul e indicate s (page s 165-166 ) tha taveraging shoul d no tresulti n "increase

d overal l toxicit y o f emissions. " Th e rul

e als o suggest s tha

tsourc e operators avoi d averaging scheme s tha

tincreas e overall toxicit

y becaus e "suc

h increase s coul d resultin additiona l control s bein g required afte r th e subsequentevaluatio n o f th e residual risk associate d wit h individua l source s an

d th e sourc e categor

y as a whole. " Absenti n di e rul e i s an y discussio n o f

a syste m tha

tpermit s "ris k equivalent " averaging . Th e Ai r Implementation Tas k Forc e agree d ma

tn o interpollutan

taveraging shoul d occu r unti l such a system wa s developed . A n objectiv e o f

th e HO N workgrou p i s t o examin e whethe r a workabl e syste m fo r "ris k equivalent " interpollutan

taveraging can b e develope d an d whedie r such a system ca n b e supported b y states , industry , environmenta l groups , an

d EPA . A syste m fo r interpollutan ttradin g i s bein g develope d unde r Sectio n 112(g ) (which addresse s modification s t o existin g source s ma tresulti n increase s o f

HAPs) . EP

A i s required unde

r di e Ac tt o develo p a hazar d rankin g syste m fo r th e 19 0 HAP s identified i n Tid e m . Fo r consistency , i twoul d b e desirabl e t o us e di e 112(g ) syste m a s di e basi s for interpollutan

taveragin g i n di e HON . Th e syste m EP

A i s considerin g put

s the pollutant

s int o bin s whic h reflectthei r toxicit y an d risk . Issue s relating t o thi s ar e covere d i n th e enclose d Hel d lette r t o EPA , i n th e Shapir o lette r t o th e Scienc e Advisory Board , i n th e STAPPA/ALAPC O Resolutions , in di e STAPPA/ALAPC O letter s t o Jorda n an d Shapiro , an

d i n EPA' s Ma

y 2 6 presentatio n t o di e Clean Ai r A a Advisory Committee . Reflectin g another approach , a n indexin g schem e wa s develope d in th e Earl y Toxi c Reduction s (ETR ) proposal . A s indicate d o n page s 4- 7 o f di e ET Rsummary , a weightin g facto r wa s assigne d t o 3 5 highly toxi c pollutant s base d o n diei r toxicity . (Al l other chemical s hav e a weightin g facto r o f one. ) STAPP

A oppose s di e ETRindexin g system s an d prefer s trading pollutant

s b y "bins " i n which pollutant s ar e groupe d accordin g t o similarit y o f risk .P. 5


### <s Curren t Option s O r Proposals : Bin s V s Indexin g Th e Bi n Approac h Th e bi n approac h put s each pollutant

s i n a bi n according to it

s toxicity/carcinogenicity . A schem e coul d be develope d wher e averaging woul d be allowe d widii n bins an d from higher-risk bins (overcontrolle d unit ) t o lower-ris k bins (undercontrolled unit) . I n duafbi n process , consideratio n coul d b e give n to HAP s whic h tend t

o bioaccumulat

e an d for HAP

s wit h n o safet

y threshold . Th e mai

n advantage t o binnin

g i s tha ti tacknowledge s th

e uncertaint y inheren tin th e dat

a o n toxicit

y an d carcinogenicit

y an d allow s approximation in th e decision . Th e Indexin g Optio n Indexing , whic h i s use d i n th e ET Rproposal , assign s a numbe r t o each pollutantaccording t o it s toxicity . Air

y trades tha

toccu r must'tak e the tota l toxi c emission s int

o accoun t base d o n di e assigne d weights . Thi s syste m appear s t o allo w risk equivalentaveraging , bu tdoe s no ttake int

o accountth e inheren

tuncertaint

y associate d wid i existin g dat a o n thes e pollutants . Each HA P an d its relationship t

o al l othe r HAP s mustb e determined an d thi s ma y no tb e justifiabl e give n th e curren tdata . Indexin g may , therefore , resulti n inconsistencies . 

### item s T o Conside r I n Reviewin g Th e Above Option s

• I s ther e enoug h scientifi c dat

a t o suppor

ta "ris k equivalent " averagin g scheme ?

• I s speciatio n o f

emission s possible ? If

not , ho w ca n group s o f

HAP s b e traded ?

• Shoul d a schem e fo r averagin g high-ris k pollutant s b e devise d t o address bioaccumulatio n o f

pollutants ?

• Shoul d reductions o f

lower-ris k pollutant

s b e allowe d to offse tundercontrolle d higher risk pollutants ?

• Shoul d certai n highl y toxic/carcinogeni c pollutant s b e prohibite d fro

m averaging , b e limite d onl y t o overcontro l t o generat e credits , o r b e allowe d t o averag e onl y amon g themselves ?



### • Shoul d th e schem e b e update d regularl y by EP A t o incorporat e ne

w informatio n o n pollutants ? I f yes , ho w frequently ? Shoul d change s i n hazard ranking s requir e immediat e change s i n existin g averagin g schemes ?

Nationa l Governors ' Associatio

n Pa p 2