Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0490-0077
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2017-10-26T04:00Z

MEMORANDUM

To:		Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2016 - 0490

From: 	Karen Marsh, U.S. EPA, OAQPS, Sector Policies and Programs Division

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:	Department of Defense Meeting -- Proposed NESHAP for POTW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 	March 24, 2017 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Representatives of EPA/OAQPS/SPPD met with members of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Department of Defense (DoD) to discuss the proposed revisions to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). The purpose of the meeting was for EPA to listen to DoD concerns and answer limited questions about the proposed rule. This meeting took place during the public comment period for the proposed rule (81 FR 95352, December 27, 2016) and stakeholders were encouraged to submit written comments on the proposed rule. 

Attendees:
 
U.S. EPA
Karen Marsh 
David Cozzie
Brian Shrager
Katie Hanks
Robin Dunkins

OMB
Aaron Szabo
Brandon DeBruhl

DoD
Chaela Smith
Margie Carlson
Amy Walker (Navy)

Topics/Questions/Concerns:

What was the driver or purpose for this proposal? EPA briefly explained the requirements in the Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2). Specifically, EPA explained that each MACT standard is required to be reviewed every 8 years in order to evaluate development in processes, procedures, and technologies. This is referred to as the technology review. EPA further explained that 8 years after promulgation of a MACT, we are required to review the residual risk to public health. EPA stated this proposal meets the requirements to review both risk and technology as required and meets the requirements of a court order to complete the reviews by court ordered deadlines (December 8, 2016 for proposal and October 16, 2017 for final). DoD responded that the lack of emission reductions in the proposal caused confusion over the driver to add requirements in the proposed amendments.

How did you identify the 6 major sources subject to the rule? EPA pointed to the preamble for the proposed rule and briefly described the steps taken to identify the major sources.

There is no definition of "industrial facility" but the term is used within the proposal. EPA recommended that DoD incorporate this into their comments.

Is there no expectation of identifying additional facilities? EPA indicated we had already been contacted by one POTW that is currently subject to the rule but was not included in our analysis. We also discussed other stakeholder meetings that indicated the potential for additional sources though none had been specifically identified.

Was the industry expected to conduct their own risk assessment? EPA replied that the burden for a risk assessment is on the EPA and not the regulated industry. The proposed risk assessment was available for comment but no additional action was required by the industry to perform an independent assessment.

There were several comment extension requests for an additional 120 days but EPA only extended the comment period for 30 days. How did EPA reach the decision to only extend 30 days? EPA stated that this rule is under a court order to be signed by October 16, 2017 and extending the comment period beyond 30 days would not have allowed enough time to evaluate the comments and prepare a final rule.