## EPA Improving Environmental Regulations

Public Meeting Summary Template US EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 , 2 nd Floor. 

### Plenary Summary Purpose  Stakeholder Listening Session (3/16/2011) - to allow Stakeholders to help in the design that EPA will use to perio dically review its regulations. List of Attendees

 EPA Region 3 – William C. Early, Deputy Regional Administrator; Mick Kulik, Acting Public Affairs Di rector; 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 p rofessional 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 Exec utive 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 concernso Noted that in addition to soliciting comments from the public, regulated community, and other stakeholders, t he Region 3 Program Offices have been a sked to identify reg ulations th ey believe should be updated , revised, or revisited. o Additional questions w ill be identified at the end.

Opening Presentation Cont’d  Subsequent to these Regional and HQs Listening Sessions, the agency will l ist 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 Substance s Control Act (TSCA) . General concern is lack of integration and consistency between Pennsylvania’s One Cleanup Program and EPA’s c leanup 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 ap proval 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 cause s problems : a. C haracteriz ation 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, u nder TSCA, capping of PCB-contaminated soils is allowed. However, since only limited concentrations of PCBs can bepresent, digging out PCB soils in most cases would be required.  On the other hand, Pennsylvania’s Act II Program has a few ways of approac hing 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 comp liance. 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 .

Charl ene Drake (Real World examples of how inconsistencies in state and federal programs impact PCB cleanup sites )

 TSCA sampling (778 more sampl es required at one particular site ). $2 .3 million spent vs $900K to satisfy the TSCA requirement.  Under TSCA l imited universe of where you can dispose PCB-contaminated soil.  Lenders started asking for closeout report.  Reg ulations never seemed to mesh well with Brownfields issues in the field.  Cap de sig n under TSCA was more practical. PADEP doesn’t have a cap des ign. 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 a lternative m onitoring 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, S ubpart 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 consul tants). 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 B ill 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 – S uspects 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 fo r the tremendous progress our country has made !