EPA Improving Environmental Regulations

Public Meeting Summary Template

US EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, 2nd Floor.

Plenary Summary

Purpose

 Stakeholder Listening Session (3/16/2011) - to allow Stakeholders to help in the design 

that EPA will use to periodically review its regulations.

List of Attendees

 EPA Region 3 – William C. Early, Deputy Regional Administrator; Mick Kulik, 

Acting Public Affairs Director; Terri White, Press Team Leader; Rita Tate, Meeting 

Recorder

 Rodd W. Bender, Esquire, Manko, Gold, Katcher, Fox LLP; 401 City Avenue, 

Philadelphia, PA 19004

 Charlene Drake, Director of Operations, React Environmental Professional 

Services Group (REPSG), Inc., P.O. Box 5377, 6901 Kingsessing Avenue, Suite 201, 

Philadelphia, PA 19142-0377

 Richard O. Quinnette III, Chemical Engineer, 428 Temple Court, Woodbury 

Heights, NJ 08097

Note: The three external stakeholders are members of the Delaware Valley Chapter of the Air 

& Waste Management Association a professional organization that provides training, 

information, and networking opportunities to 12000 environmental professionals in 65 

countries.

Opening Presentation

 Incorporate key points from opening presentation

o Concerns Executive Order 13563; Environmental Rulemaking

o Written comments due in two weeks

o Emphasized that EPA officials are here to listen; are not trying to respond to or 

resolve regulatory concerns
o Noted that in addition to soliciting comments from the public, regulated 

community, and other stakeholders, the Region 3 Program Offices have been 

asked to identify regulations they believe should be updated, revised, or 

revisited. 

o Additional questions will be identified at the end.

Opening Presentation Cont’d

 Subsequent to these Regional and HQs Listening Sessions, the agency will list clarifying 

questions from the public and EPA responses

Rodd Bender

Want to focus comments on PCB Site Remediation Issues, particularly in Pennsylvania. 

Comments relate to requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). General 

concern is lack of integration and consistency between Pennsylvania’s One Cleanup Program 

and EPA’s cleanup program. 

 State vs Federal framework don’t seem to be integrated

 TSCA Program 40 CFR 761 has two approval approaches for PCB cleanup 

1. Self Implementing Cleanup (owner implements and determines when cleanup is 

complete; no approval process at end; EPA oversight)

2. Risk-based approval approach (EPA has authority to deviate from this approach 

however the self-implementing approach is typically preferred.)

 Two areas where inconsistency in federal and state programs causes

problems:

a. Characterization of a site

 Can greatly influence costs. For instance, TSCA requires rigid 

grid approach for characterizing contamination, whereas the 

state program allows flexibility. 

b. Establishing cleanup standards

 Not enough flexibility with federal regulations. For instance, 

under TSCA, capping of PCB-contaminated soils is allowed. 

However, since only limited concentrations of PCBs can be 
present, digging out PCB soils in most cases would be 

required. 

 On the other hand, Pennsylvania’s Act II Program has a few 

ways of approaching cleanups, including the use of numeric 

(state-wide health) standards, and site specific approaches. 

For instance, where there’s direct contact involved, the state 

requires removing soil 15 feet deep; where there’s 

groundwater impacted, must delineate and possibly go 

deeper and/or consideration given to whether people are on 

groundwater. This flexibility allows cost savings. In addition, 

you get written statement by the state on having deemed the 

property “cleaned up.”

o Look at different points of compliance. 

o Sampling at state level: more flexibility in 

characterizing a site.

o Site Specific Approach (allows you to eliminate 

exposure entirely)

 Capping (not able to see what the human health risk is)

3. In summary:

 Region 3 doesn’t like to go through Risk-based approach, limiting flexibility.

 Lack of communication and integration between EPA and PA programs 

creates redundancy, increasing costs; requires you to produce different 

reports required by both the state and federal agencies.

Charlene Drake (Real World examples of how inconsistencies in state and federal 

programs impact PCB cleanup sites)

 TSCA sampling (778 more samples required at one particular site). $2.3 million

spent vs $900K to satisfy the TSCA requirement. 

 Under TSCA limited universe of where you can dispose PCB-contaminated soil.

 Lenders started asking for closeout report. 

 Regulations never seemed to mesh well with Brownfields issues in the field. 

 Cap design under TSCA was more practical. PADEP doesn’t have a cap design.
 Suggestion: revisions to self-implementing approach. Explore possibility of using 

language under risk-based approach but also follow state program so that 

approval at state level also satisfies EPA concept of approval.

Rich Quinnette (Comments unrelated to PCBs; offered comments on various issues) 

 Leak Detection and Repair rule – Suggests the need for an alternative monitoring 

method. Method 21 required yearly; use of a camera five other times per year. 

Device costs $120k. Assertion has been made that you can check valve once 

every 3-5 years rather than every year.

 Benzene Waste Operations (40 CFR 60, Subpart FF ) NESHAP – been a while since 

EPA has enforced; may have been revamped in 2005; reg is confusing 

 3 Refineries are down in the East Coast. 2 aren’t expected to return. Significant 

impact on contracting jobs.

Compilation of Suggested Candidate Regulations for Review

 40 CFR 761 – Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution 

in Commerce and Use Prohibitions. TSCA

 40 CFR 60, Subpart FF - National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations

 LDAR (Leak Detection and Repair)

 New automated FR system

General Comments Regarding Review Elements

Specific Comments About Regulations

 Summarize the comments received by element (e.g., suggestions for what regulations 

should be modified based on issues with a particular element or suggestions about how 

that element of the review process should be enhanced)

o Integration & Innovation

 Charlene Drake 

 Specific groups focused on emerging technologies. Need to take a look at 

how these emerging technologies affect EPA regulations. Integrating 

people who are developing technologies and the people who actually use 

them. 

 Case managers need to be involved in conversations about these regs; 

training would be useful before regs are rolled out.
 Rich Quinnette – Reviewing regulations on process analyses (ex 

greenhouse gas). Training (Benzene: Did find videos from private 

consultants). 

o Science Obsolete/Technology Outdated

 Rodd Bender – Engaging regulated community in rules/regs that haven’t been 

looked at in years is a good thing. Every 5 years there should be a review of regs. 

 Rich Quinnette – There’s no training available on benzene waste NESHAP

 Agencies should go out and solicit input and or have meetings with specialty 

groups that will be impacted by particular regs. This should be done upfront and 

early in the process.

o State, Local, and Tribal Governments

 Rodd Bender – Advisory groups (State has regular meeting providing 

upfront communication in the drafting stage). 

 Additional suggestions for candidate regulations and justifications

Comments Received During Focused Comment Period 

Bill Early - Are there any comments or suggestions that you can think of on the processes that 

we can revise, revisit?

Rich Quinnette - (new FR system less user friendly than old system)

Rodd Bender - What’s happens next?

Mick Kulik - All processes will be looked at by the White House. May be some guidance 

developed on the regulatory process. No intent to comply with single suggestion.

Rich Quinnette – let us know what happens.

Mick Kulik – referred attendees to website on Fact Sheet. 

Charlene Drake – How would she actively be updated on TSCA program? 
Mick Kulik – Will be able to put you in contact with the program. Can help you make 

connection.

Bill Early – Suspects more is coming. Each Region asked to identify specific regulations that 

need to be addressed. 

Mick Kulik – initial list will be published in May or June.

Rich Quinnette – Has there been an effort to benchmark this country’s environmental 

regulations with other countries (Germany, China)? Every now and then we should toot our 

horns for the tremendous progress our country has made!