Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0044-0050
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-04-05T04:00Z

DATE:  March 14, 2007

MEMORANDUM to the Docket for the Pollution Prevention (P2) Amendments

SUBJECT:  Conference Call with Environmental Council of the States
(ECOS) about Pollution Prevention (P2) Amendments

PARTIPANTS:

Rick Colyer, OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Penny Lassiter, OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Rick Vetter, OGC/EPA

Jenny Craig, OPAR/OAR/EPA

Janet McDonald, OAR/EPA

Mark McDermid, State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Roger Fritz, State of Wisconsin

Bill Baumann, State of Wisconsin

Rick Sprott, State of Utah (with 4 other participants)

Arleen O’Donnell, State of Massachusetts

Laurel Kroack, State of Illinois

Emily Land, Environmental Commissioners of the States (ECOS)

Margaret Sealey, ECOS

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION:

The goal of the meeting was to describe the upcoming P2 amendments and
the status of the rulemaking.  Rick Colyer described:  (1) the
relationship between P2 and the Once-In Always-In (OIAI) proposal; (2) a
summary of the draft P2 amendments package; and (3) changes and
clarifications in the draft final rule.

Relationship between P2 and OIAI:  OIAI pertains to when major sources
can become area sources.  The P2 amendments would pertain to affected
sources that are subject to a maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) rule under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (and there can be
many affected sources at a major source).  Under the pending P2 rule, if
an affected source eliminates all its hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions, it could get out of those applicable MACT requirements; if
there are other potential HAP emissions above the cutoff levels for area
sources at other parts of the facility, the facility would still be
considered a major source.

Proposed P2 amendments:  EPA proposed the amendments in 2003; EPA is now
in the last part of internal review and the package will hopefully go to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the next 2-3 weeks.  OMB
can have up to 3 months to review the package, and hopefully the rule
will be finalized by the end of June 2007.

In the proposed amendments, we created two new sections.  Option 1
relates to an affected source that eliminates all HAPs through P2 and
therefore is no longer subject to MACT; Option 2 would allow affected
sources to use P2 to meet performance standards to comply with MACT with
appropriate testing, monitoring, reporting, and record keeping.  A
source would apply to EPA or the delegated authority on either option 1
or 2.  Within 45 days (or 30, if the source is a Performance Track
facility), if EPA or the delegated authority agree with the source, it
would send an enforceable letter with terms of the agreement.

Rick Sprott asked whether the letter is legally enforceable, and Rick
Colyer answered yes.

Changes and clarifications in the draft final rule:  

Rick Colyer noted that the current draft contained these changes and
clarifications.  Because the rule is not yet final there was always a
chance that there could potentially be some additional changes, but he
did not expect them.

Under Option 1, EPA originally said all affected sources subject to a
specific MACT standard at a facility would have to eliminate HAPs; that
has been changed to each affected source to provide more flexibility.

The proposal allowed sources to make changes right away; the draft final
rule says source could implement changes immediately only if it is a
minor permit modification; if it is a major modification, it would have
to go through public comment and implement the P2 measures only after
incorporation into the permit.

If a source eliminates HAPs, but then decides to emit HAPs again, it
would have to provide 15 days notice before going back to emitting those
HAPs (the proposal had 30 days).

Final rule would clarify what it means to “completely eliminate”
HAPs (i.e., below detectable limits, below reportable levels, below
levels of 1 percent of noncancer HAP or 0.1 percent of cancer HAP).

Under option 2, the proposal would have allowed permitting authorities
to set P2 requirements tighter than the MACT requirements; for the final
we are making P2 requirements at least as stringent, but they do not
have to be more stringent, than the MACT requirements.

In the proposal, there was language that sources were eligible for the
options if subject to MACT at the first compliance date.  That has been
changed so that sources could do P2 before or after compliance date.

Final rule would clarify that the option approval process is not tied to
the permitting process.  Option approval could be done concurrently if
it fits into the permitting process, but it does not have to.

On the question of permit modification, EPA would leave it up to the
permitting authority to decide whether major or minor permit
modifications are needed.

Roger Fritz asked whether the authority would be delegated to the MACT
or Title V authority.  Rick Vetter clarified that the state agency with
delegation for MACT would decide if the P2 option is appropriate for
complying with the MACT; the state agency with delegation for Title V
would decide whether it is a major or minor modification.

The ECOS representatives were positive regarding the direction the final
draft was taking.  Mark McDermid, Arleen O’Donnell, and Rick Sprott
all encouraged EPA to keep the P2 amendments rule moving and not to let
it get delayed because of the parallel effort on the OIAI proposal.

 PAGE   

 PAGE   2