Document OzO8ydkMG9977Omnn8mRp31KQ

To: Environmental Coordinators From: Joe Ledvina November 5, 1990 Subject: Clean Air Act Attached is a summary of some Clean Air Act provisions that will affect Vista. In particular, the list of pollutants and sources, MACT standards, residual risk, permits, and accidental releases will be areas directly impacting us. As of this moment, the bill has not been signed by the President. However, it is unlikely to differ from the attached. cc: Plant Managers, THH, JAD, RDG, EJM VAB.0001166408 4 1 i abandon ash management guidelines. House aoinces ny incinerator cmlwrioni will be ngulited like toy ocher source under the air unks tide, with the exception of the duration of operating permits. The confbroace agreement sets* 12year pennitfor incinerators, a compromise between the House's five-year offer and the Senate's original provision of 30 yean. EPA will be allowed to promulgate its new source performance standards for incinerators, expected out by December, and will have one year to modify tbe NSPS to define MACT for the industry. Recycling mandates and ash retee offered in the Senate bfll were dropped; but ltimmr bmring EPA from regalathig indneneor ash as hazardous under subtitle C ofRRA> flbr two yams waadded. Iacfcremton wi& be srityect to feetdoal ri* prorisloos "8 yean agMr TM iim Mt wmMtWm Fbr volontmy reductions, the deal grams a six-year extension of the MACT compliance deadline to sowces that have voiimtafily reduced toxic emissions 90% below 1987 levels. Text Agnomont onTKto III of tho Oman Air Act Amendments of 1980 Routine Emissions from Ma|or Sources Permits List of FoButaats and Source Categories: - Each source subject to these standards will be required - The Conference agreement establishes a list of 189 to apply for t permit under title IV of the bill. The permit chemicals taken from the Administration's bill, except ammo nia and hydrogen sulfide were deleted. - EPA is to establish a list of major source categories program will be managed hy the Stares, so long as they meet Fcdcul rffjoirypiiflitt (chemical plants, oilrefineries, steelplants, etc.)for thepurpose Special Provisions for Coke Ovens and Utilities of promulgating standards. Approximately 250 source catego - Coke ovens which achieve a stringent level of control ries will be subjectto regulation. The sumdards apply to sources may qualify for snextensionofthe compliancedate forresidual in a category. risk standards to 2020. - Utility emissions of air toxics would only be regulated MACT Standard after a study by EPA and only if EPA found that regulation is - For each category of sources, EPA will promulgate a warranted. standard which requires the installation of maximum achiev able control technology (MACT)hy thesources in thecategory. Great Lakes Pollution MACT is generally the best available control technology, --The Conference agreement requires EPA to study toxic taking cost into account. pollution of the Greet Takes which results from atmospheric -All standards are to bepromulgated within 10 years, with deposition of metals and other toxic particulates. EPA is re standards for 41 source categories required within 2 years. quired to take action to protea the water quality of the Great -Existing sources must comply with MACTstandardsnot Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay. later than 3 years after promulgation (with possible 1 year extension). Routine Emissions from Area Sourest - When listing pollutants and setting-standards, EPA would be required to consider impacts on the environment as well as human health effects. -- Basedon the listofpollutants mentioned above, EPAcan also list an area source category (dry cleaners, gas stations, woodatovea and small combustion unit*, fete.) jnt tha fgynry Voluntary Reduction -- Any source making a voluntary reduction of 90% below 1987 emissions levels receives a 6-year extension on the MACT compliance date. would list a major source category and require MACT. EPA must list sufficient source categories to assure that 90% of the emisriom of the 30 moat serious area source pollutants are regulated. Residual Risk --There is an alternative area source control program for those sources that present a substantial risk to health, but for -- Under some circumstances, MACT may not provide enough public health protection. - If, afterinstallationofMACT, a significantriskremains, EPA must tighten the standards 8 years after initial promulga tion of the MACT standard. - Standard for protection is "an ample margin of safety to protea public health, unless amore stringent standard is neces sary to protect the environment. - EPA is required to set "residual risk** standards far which best available technology is too costly. --EPA is to monitor a broad range of urban toxics in cities with populations over 250,000 to determine which area source pollutants present the greatest risk. - Five years after enactment, EPA is to propose anational urban air toxics strategy to reduce cancer risks associated with urbanair toxics by 75%. EPA istoreport onreductions achieved in 8 and 10 year intervals. pollutants whichmay causacancer whenever the risk is greater than 1-in-1,000,000totheperooninthe general populationmost exposed to emissions from a source in the category. Accidental Releases -- These provisions are designed to prevent chemical T!H<Vnte 1 ( 4 I W \ \ ! i VAB.0001160409 2 INSIDE EPA - Special Report October 19,1990 l 1 -- That is a general duty of the owner or operator of each facility handling extremely hazardous substances to operate safely. -- EPA is to publish a list of at least 100 extremely hazardous air pollutants, of which approximately 20 are listed in the Conference agreement -- Each owner of a facility handling extremely hazardous substances must complete an engineering analysis of the facil ity to identify possible hazards to public health. The assess ments would be publicly available. -- The Conference agreement establishes a Chemical Safety Board to investigate chemical accidents, rimiiar to the National Transportation Safety Board. - EPA is authorized to promulgate accident prevention regulations. Municipal Incinerators - The Conference agreement includes provisions to con trol the air emissions Bom municipal, hospital and other com mercial and industrial incinerators. -- Recycling and ash management provisions from the Senate bill were deleted. 4* I STATE REGULATORS SUFFER DEFEAT IN CAA INCINERATOR DEAL First-time incinerator controls agreed to by clean air conferees are acceptable to both environmentalists and industry, but state and local governments argue that by dropping ash management guidelines, the conference agree ment will exacerbate their waste management woes. The conferees agreed Oct. 17 to regulate incinerators like any other source of air toxics, except with a seven-year extension for operating permits. But the agreement abandons the 25% recycling goal and regulations for incinerator ash disposal offered in the original Senate bill, provisions that were vehemently opposed by environmentalists but generally acceptable to industry. Dropping the recycling and ash requirements satisfied environmentalists* primary concerns with the inrinrratPr package, leading several sources to proclaim partial victory. "We dodged a bullet on this one,'* says one environmen talist Ash management "belongs under RCRA," an environmentalist says; these sources felt the Senate's ash provi sions "include[d] insufficient requirements to protect groundwater from the toxic leachate from ash landfills.** In addition, by setting recycling goals that environmentalists maintain are far too low, and by offering 30 year permits, the original Senate package "encouraged incineration over recycling." With the 12-year permit compromise and language requiring EPA to put off a decision on ash for two years, these sources say the conference package is "an acceptable compromise." Industry sources are similarly sanguine about the conference settlement, noting particularly that EPA's new source performance standard for incinerators, which is due out this year, will likely be the final guidance incinerators will be forced to comply with. Industry officials say they were concerned they would be forced to implement a -rond stringent maximum achievable control technology (MACT) two years after meeting the NSPS. Under the agreement, EPA's December rule will be modified to define MACT within 12 months of its promulgation. Waste management experts say they would have preferred a bill that contained guidance on ash management, but that since states are already writing their own standards, losing federal provisions does not leave the industry without guideposts. Like en vironmentalists, these sources agree that "it could have been much worse." Local waste management officials, however, say they got "the worst deal possible.** These sources argue that without specific ash management provisions, "any facility that is still in planning will be put on hold." One local government source says putting off an ash classification decision means "we have to wait two years for the other regulatory shoe to drop.** This source says municipalities will be forced to revamp any project they begin now when RCRA is reauthorized and state laws are preempted. Industry and environmentalists can be satisfied, another source says, "because they don't pay the bills." This source argues that industry has no problem meeting tough standards for air emissions or looking to states for guidance on ash because any costs incurred when regulations change or new technologies are required can be passed on to taxpayers. Meanwhile, this source continues, cities must Hani^ to site facilities over citizen objections that the plants meet no federal safety guidelines. Another local official agrees: "The deal means our solid waste crisis will get worse.** INSIDE EPA - Special Report - October 19,1990 VAB.0001166410 3