Document jmzja1OZL8R587DNBobQMwbk9

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC 27711 NOV 26 1996 Peter E. Voytek, Ph-D. Executive Director Halogmated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc. 2001L Street, N.W., Suite 506A Washington, D.C. 20036 Dear Mr. Voytek: Thank you for your letter of October-10,1996 to Mary Nichols concerning our integrated air toxics strategy. While the report you reviewed was a "works-in-progress" and did not reflect the final views ofthe OaQPS Air Toxics Strategy team, it did describe creative, strategic ways to move forward with the air toxics program consistent with the common s*"** approach contained in section 112 of the Clean Air Act. We appreciate your thoughtful comments on the successes of our MACT program. We are now completing die draft strategy for review by interested stakeholders and will send you a copy when it is distributed. In your letter you expressed concern about how we developed a short list ofpollutants of high concern on which to focus research and regulatory efforts. The list was developed as an example of how we could focus the air toxics program on the hazardous air pollutants (HAP) that are currently known to present the most serious human health and environmental effects. This aspect ofthe draft strategy did not mean thai other HAP are not important; the strategy for all HAP to be addressed appropriately. With respect to the technical concerns which you expressed, we will consider them as we complete the report. I appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust this is helpful to you ice of Air Quality Planning and Standards CMA115853 EPA TO-SIGNIFICANTLY REVISE PLAN TO OVERHAUL AIR TOXICS PROGRAM A draft EPA strategy to dramatically overhaul the agency's Clean Air Act air toxics program is being rewritten to address concerns that die current plan would undermine state regulatory efforts, agency staff say. Moreover, some EPA staff say that the revisions are intended to clarify that die strategy can be accomplished within the confines of the Clean Air Act and therefore that the plan does not represent a call for legislative action. Since last summer, EPA staff have been attempting to craft a new strategy for controlling toxic air pollution that improves environmental protection while reducing administrative burdens for the agency and die regulated commu nity. The effort was premised on a recognition that the agency's myriad regulatory efforts under section 112 ofthe Clean Air Act coordination rod were resulting in policies that were duplicative or had little value. To correct this hnrtrfmmft the Office ofAir Quality Planning A Standards convened a team to study the entire program and develop recommendations that would guide future agency reform efforts. Tbe <wti produced a draft report that was presented to agency managers in July (Inside EPA, July 19, p1). At the heart ofdie strategy are recommendations that call on tbe agency to prioritize its efforts according to the greatest discemabk risks. For instance, the report calls on the air program to develop a list ofhazardous air pollutants that pose die greatest threat to the public rod specifically tailor regulations so that public exposure to these pollutants is mini mized. As a trade-off, the report implies diet less significant pollutants may be de-emphasized in the standard-setting process. Some ofthe report's recommendations have raised concerns with state regulators who fear that tbe redirection will undercut state regulatory efforts. For instance, some state officials have complained that they will face increased scrutiny in publishing regulations that address pollutants that the federal government believes are less significant and less deserving of regulatory annul inn Due in part to these concerns, EPA managers have directed tbe architects ofthe strategy to significantly refine the proposal. Specifically, ooe EPA official points out that the revisions are intended to dispel ny notions that the strategy is mtin/Wt to "sacrifice" certain Clean Air Act provisions for those that are deemed to be mote important. The draft strategy, according to this source, led some state-regulators to believe that tbe agency no longer felt that certain programs or pollutants covered under section 112 oftbe act were important This source says that staffhave been directed to make it clear m tbe revised strategy that the agency is not recommending outright regulatory trade-offs that would leave state regulators vulnerable to criticism that they are attacking insignificant risks. Moreover, sources say that staff have been directed to "clarify" and "tighten" the strategy so that the public clearly understands that this effort is intended to bolster environmental protection. A second EPA official adds that revisions are also necessary to dispel any notions feat this document is intended to serve as a blueprint for statutory reform. This source points out feat fee agency firmly believes that it can accom plish its goals within fee existing confines of section 112 and therefore this strategy should not be construed to imply feat fee agency believes feat legislative changes are necessary. In case there are misinterpretations in Congress, EPA staff say feat agency officials will meet wife congressional staff during fee next month to explain fee true intentions of fee strategy. Citing Paperwork Reduction Act violations OMB PARTIALLY REJECTS EPA PROPOSAL TO EXPAND TOXICS REPORTING PROGRAM The Office of Management A Budget last week determined that EPA failed to comply with fee Papa-work Reduction Act when h proposed to expand fee toxics reporting program to seven new industrial sectors, agency staff say. But agency staff are downplaying fee significance of this action, claiming feat OMB's ruling is not uncommon and feat it should have little effect on fee timing of a final rule. But some industry sources argue feat the decision indicates feat fee agency dearly failed to fulfill its administrative responsibilities when it crafted its expansion pro posal Hie Toxics Release Inventory program requires facilities wife ten or more employees to report certain chemical emissions to fee agency; however, the current requirements only apply to 20 industry sectors. EPA proposed June 26 to expand its TRI program to 6400 new facilities in fee following seven industry sectors: metal mmmgj coal mining, electric utilities, commercial hazardous waste treatment, petroleum bulk terminals, chemical wholesalers, solvent recovery services. Industry groups have raised strong concerns wife fee expansion proposal claiming feat these industries are already heavily regulated by a multitude of state, local and federal regulations. CMA115854 Along wife fee proposed rule, EPA is required under fee Paperwork Reduction Act to submit an informa tion collection proposal on fee rule to OMB. Under fee act, EPA must identify whether the proposal will impose new reporting and recordkeeping requirements, estimate the burdens that the proposal will impose on facilities, 10 INSIDE EPA - September 6,1996